Guest post by David Middleton
Dr. Rusty Riese’s May 2014 presentation to the Houston Geological Society…
Speaker: W.C. Rusty Riese
Adjunct Professor, Rice University
Climate Change: Facts and Fictions
The past several years have seen several opinion pieces regarding climate change appear in the pages of many publications, both scientific and secular. Although both sides of this now almost religious debate were represented, few if any real facts or data are provided to support the opinions expressed. The public deserves more, and specifically deserves to be properly informed.
The heat content of the atmosphere has remained largely unchanged since 1995. Data prepared and compiled by a number of climate scientists illustrate the wide divergence of climate model projections from what has been occurring: the climate has not been warming any more than would be expected as the world continues to move out of the Little Ice Age. These data have been accepted by the IPCC, whose chair admits that the climate modeling community does not understand what is happening.
Water vapor in the atmosphere is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Climatologists have understood this for decades and this is a fact clearly expressed in all climatology textbooks. None of the climate models employed today adequately address the influence of water vapor.
Cosmic radiation is the source of the particles which cause water droplet nucleation and cloud formation in the upper atmosphere. Its flux, in turn, is directly influenced by solar activity and the strength of the resulting solar wind. None of the climate models deal with either of these first-order climate influences.
The Earth’s atmosphere has had far higher CO2 content many times and for much of the geologic past, and major glacial events have occurred during those times, most notably during the Carboniferous and Silurian. The inescapable conclusion is that CO2 has no relationship to the temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere. This is a conclusion that was reached by many scientists who have looked at ice core data and found that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere occur several hundred years after temperatures have risen – they do not change in lock-step as has been claimed, and an event 800 years in the future cannot impact events today.
These facts allow a number of fictions to be addressed:
- Polar bears will not become extinct if sea ice diminishes. Polar bears were around before the Medieval Warm Period and came through it just fine. And a recently published, peer-review study of the Davis Straights in Canada found that not only had the polar bear population increased dramatically since the 1970s, but that the area may have reached its carrying capacity. Good news for polar bears.
- The evolution which the climate is exhibiting, and which it constantly exhibits, is not causing an increase in violent storms. The frequency of violent tornados (>F3) is similar.
- The changes in climate during the past 100 years have not caused either an increase in flooding or an increase in the number or extent of droughts.
- The number of daily record high temperatures is not at an all-time high. For the past 100 years that was reached in the 1930s during the Dust Bowl.
- Finally, there is not a consensus among scientists that anthropogenic CO2 is causing climate change. The widely quoted number of 97% of scientists believing in global warming is based on an on-line survey of 10,257 earth scientists. 3,146 replied and all but 77 were “disqualified” by the researchers conducting the survey. Of those, 75 thought that humans were contributing to climate change, thus the 97% number, one that is not particularly robust.
The conclusions to be drawn from examination of these data are four:
1. All of the scary global warming scenarios are based on computer models.
2. None of the models work.
3. There is and has been no scientific consensus.
4. The data which come from our global experiment, the observations we have made, indicate that the climate is evolving and always has evolved continuously, and people have had nothing to do with that change. We need to use this information to stop our regulators and legislators from taking steps and passing laws which will have no effect on the climate we enjoy and can only have disastrous impacts on our economy.
Biographical Sketch:
Dr. W.C. Rusty Riese is a geoscientist based in Houston, Texas. He is widely experienced having worked in both minerals and petroleum as a geologist, geochemist, and manager during more than 40 years in industry. He participated in the National Petroleum Council evaluation of natural gas supply and demand for North America which was conducted at the request of the Secretary of Energy; in the more recent analysis of global supply and demand requested by the same agency; and in the National Research Council analysis of coalbed produced waters and their management in the western United States. He is currently a member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Committee on Resource Evaluations, and a member of the House of Delegates, and past Sections Vice President.
Rusty has written extensively and lectured on various topics in economic geology including biogeochemistry, isotope geochemistry, uranium ore deposits, sequence stratigraphy, and coalbed methane petroleum systems; and he holds numerous domestic and international patents. He has more than thirty years of teaching experience including twenty eight years at Rice University where he developed the curricula in petroleum geology and industry risk and economic evaluation, as well as several other courses. He is currently an Adjunct Professor at Rice University and the University of New Mexico. He is a fellow in the Geological Society of America and the Society of Economic Geologists; and a member of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists and several other professional organizations.
He earned his PhD from the University of New Mexico in 1980; his M.S. in geology from the same university in 1977; and his B.S. in geology from the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology in 1973. He is a Certified Professional Geologist, a Certified Petroleum Geologist, and is a Licensed and Registered Geologist in the states of Texas and South Carolina respectively.
https://www.hgs.org/civicrm/event/info?reset=1&id=1354
While the AAPG has largely disengaged from the debate, its largest local affiliate hasn’t totally disengaged.
Last year, Dr. Neill Frank gave the following presentation at the 2016 Ryder Scott Reserves Conference…
Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?
by Dr. Neil Frank
A couple of Dr. Frank’s slides were from WUWT posts. Slide #16 is one of mine… 😎
Rusty could update his graph from Christy 2013 to 2017.
David,
Thanks for the great posting.
It would be better if the graph were updated to the extent possible showing UAH and balloon data to 2017.
Isn’t the data available?
Yes. See Christy’s written Congressional testimony from the march 29 2017 hearing.
That’s the graph from the 2014 presentation.
The 2017 graph is here:
David,
as an uninformed, I’ll educated observer, can I just point out that the only meaningful statement in Rusty’s presentation was uttered in the first few seconds.
“………then charges us with conveying that knowledge back to society at large, for their official use”
Therein, in my opinion, lies the problem of climate change, and scepticism, and why alarmists have adopted politicisation as a route to success.
Most of the worlds public don’t understand science. Some of the world’s public think they understand politics. As a mere salesman in my past life, I’m damn sure what route I would take to sell my product.
Scientist’s are not put on the planet to make life difficult for humanity, they are here to make life simple. They are here to decipher the complicated and explain it in a simple fashion to the scientifically illiterate.
Lets build a bridge says one. Why? says another. One says, because to get to the other side we need to make complicated calculations, employ powerful machinery, spend lots of money, disrupt lives, damage the environment, create jobs and publish in the media how clever we are. But I just want to cross the river to get my morning paper says another, won’t a rowing boat do?
Most science is done to overcome problems. Climate science deals with an imaginary problem. And woe betide if the alarmists get it wrong and we do descend into a little ice age, or god forbid, an ice age. Zealot-ism dictates we take a single path in life, pragmatism dictates we allow for all possibilities.
But it seems sceptics are either too blind or too noble to admit that promoting the scientific reality of climate change is backing the loser, every single time. It, in itself is Zealot-ism.
And I have made this point before, there is little point in banging on about the science, only scientists are interested, and with few exceptions, they are useless at selling a concept. And from what I can gather, all scientists are dogmatists, no matter on which side of the debate they fall, they will all try to prove their point.
If the sceptics are to prevail in this debate, they need to get off the science trip and promote the simple benefits of global warming, of which there are many, whilst cautioning not to get carried away with the concept of a warming planet, because cycles tell us that we might just be in for a cooling period. Which, of course, at this juncture, we cant promote because it would be dismissed as preposterous.
However, politics is nothing more than selling a concept, the most difficult sales job ever. And sceptics have been intent on selling the science, which is far more difficult to sell than even a concept, because the science never ends, a concept does, or until it’s next evolution.
The climate change debate can’t be won by science, it’s evolving too quickly. Every time a new study is posted here it’s refuted by another new study. It is an impossible conundrum.
The concept is the lock, sales is the key, and politics the vehicle.
Start promoting the broad brush stroke benefits of climate change instead of fencing with the minutia and progress will be rapid.
Of course Rusty’s a denier! He’s spent his entire career in bed with big oil! /sarc
rip
Great ad hominem argument. But you say nothing about the data that support Rusty’s analysis. He offers hard data. Where are yours to counter his? Crickets.
Exactly!
You saw the /sarc, right?
/earthquakes!
He’s a heretic! But we do have a problem – the traditional way of dealing with a heretic was burning them at the stake, but do we want to have that CO2 addition? Which is worse – letting the heretic live, or turning them into harmful free carbon?
NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
A recent paper emphasizes the importance of the Millennial Cycle and supports my earlier forecasts of a coming long term cooling .
Harmonic Analysis of Worldwide Temperature Proxies for 2000 Years
Horst-Joachim Lüdecke1, *, Carl-Otto Weiss2
The Open Atmospheric Science Journal
ISSN: 1874-2823 ― Volume 11, 2017
Year: 2017
Volume: 11
First Page: 44
Last Page: 53
Publisher Id: TOASCJ-11-44
DOI: 10.2174/1874282301711010044
“Abstract
The Sun as climate driver is repeatedly discussed in the literature but proofs are often weak. In order to elucidate the solar influence, we have used a large number of temperature proxies worldwide to construct a global temperature mean G7 over the last 2000 years. The Fourier spectrum of G7 shows the strongest components as ~1000-, ~460-, and ~190 – year periods whereas other cycles of the individual proxies are considerably weaker. The G7 temperature extrema coincide with the Roman, medieval, and present optima as well as the well-known minimum of AD 1450 during the Little Ice Age. We have constructed by reverse Fourier transform a representation of G7 using only these three sine functions, which shows a remarkable Pearson correlation of 0.84 with the 31-year running average of G7. The three cycles are also found dominant in the production rates of the solar-induced cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be, most strongly in the ~190 – year period being known as the De Vries/Suess cycle. By wavelet analysis, a new proof has been provided that at least the ~190-year climate cycle has a solar origin.”
The paper also states “……G7, and likewise the sine representations have maxima of comparable size at AD 0, 1000, and 2000. We note that the temperature increase of the late 19th and 20th century is represented by the harmonic temperature representation, and thus is of pure multiperiodic nature. It can be expected that the periodicity of G7, lasting 2000 years so far, will persist also for the foreseeable future. It predicts a temperature drop from present to AD 2050, a slight rise from 2050 to 2130, and a further drop from AD 2130 to 2200 (see Fig. 3), upper panel, green and red curves.”
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2003+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract:
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.”
The forecasts in Fig 12 of my paper are similar to those in Ludecke et al.
It is well past time for a paradigm shift in the forecasting methods used by establishment climate science. The whole dangerous global warming delusion is approaching collapse
Now consider why UN-IPCC seems to think it is imperative that all major nation are locked into the Paris Accord by 2020 <- the magic date?..
Dr. Page: It will not matter if the earth cools. It will still be the fault of CO2, and attendant climate “disruption.” In the minds of climate alarmists, nothing they believe in will ever be disproved.
“Water vapor in the atmosphere is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Climatologists have understood this for decades and this is a fact clearly expressed in all climatology textbooks. None of the climate models employed today adequately address the influence of water vapor.”
This is the 800 pound gorilla in the room. One thing humans have done is increase WV in the atmosphere. Just look at irrigation world wide. I think if WV was accurately incorporated into the models, it would definitely show CO2 having negligible influence especially as CO2 levels rise, since have already done the work in the specific absorption spectrum it is responsible for. Adding more CO2 now is like putting another blanket on the window…it isn’t going to make it much darker than it already is.
Just think about how much extra WV would be in the atmosphere if the world went 100% nuclear and hydrogen based fuel cells. That would put a bit more WV in the atmosphere, making it rain perhaps a bit more. While its residency in the atmosphere is about 9 days, if you keep putting it in 24/7, it will always be cycling through the water cycle. We also have some WV from fossil based use. If we are going to be truthful about GHG, then water vapor in the atmosphere and water cycle has to be incorporated since it is the most significant ‘greenhouse’ gas.
Having said this, more WV and warmer temps are better than cooler temps and lower WV. If we can only have it one way or the other, then I choose a warmer world. And adapt if necessary.
You are viewing this the wrong way round. Evaporation is the major surface cooling mechanism. Wetting the planet by irrigation reduces surface Tmax.
Water in the atmosphere increase Tmin.
John Christy addressed that here:
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1195&context=natrespapers
Days were cooler due to transpiration in plants, nights were warmer thanks to the water vapor, with net overall warming.
nuwurld September 21, 2017 at 12:21 pm
Condensation releases heat to the atmosphere, which is how much of the entire atmosphere is warmed from solar insolation at the equator year round. You are right about evaporation being one of the mechanisms to (cool) transport latent heat from equatorial regions to the mid latitudes. Inefficient irrigation practices introduces new WV to the atmosphere via mechanical human means that wastes much of the water to WV instantly to the atmosphere resulting in more IR absorption, and also leads to more plant evapotranspiration which also absorbs more IR. We get more food which is good, but we also add net heat through the process. And ultimately more rain. Just an observation…not advocating that irrigation is all bad.
Also burning gas.
Whilst water vapour may have a low residency time, the fact is that we replenish this 24/7 52 weeks a year as we burn gas for electricity and energy.
I do not know how much gas is burnt a day, but I suspect that each day we are emitting a lot of water vapour into the atmosphere.
Cosmic radiation is the source of the particles which cause water droplet nucleation and cloud formation in the upper atmosphere. Its flux, in turn, is directly influenced by solar activity and the strength of the resulting solar wind. None of the climate models deal with either of these first-order climate influences.
Much too strong. It is stated that ‘Cosmic radiation is the source’ as if it it is the ONLY source of such particles. In addition there is no good evidence that GCRs are a ‘first-order climate influence’ as recent climate has varied in the opposite direction of the purported GCR influence [lower solar activity = higherGCR flux = more clouds = cooling?]. We should not shackle the debate about CO2 to the shaky hypothesis that GCRs is the source of a first-order climate influence.
I too feel Rusty should call GCRs a major source, not “the” source. CCNs come from a number of sources, although GCRs may well vary more than the geological and biological, terrestrial sources, so could be a key determinant in more or less cloudiness.
A minor source.
Your colleagues at SLAC seem to think that GCRs are important in CCN formation:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/pubs/slacwps/wp04/slac-wp-020-ch11f-Kirkby.pdf
The link does not say ‘important’, just that GCRs are one of the many purported sources.
And only one of the ‘secondary’ sources as opposed to the really important ‘primary’ sources.
They are a primary source in that they turn matter in the atmosphere into CCNs, which wouldn’t otherwise exist. And they’re also important, as you point out, in the proliferation of CCNs from other sources from the oceans, land and life.
SLAC used to have an excellent Web page showing the muon cascade effect from GCR flux, but it long ago disappeared. I wish I had saved its graphics. They were great. But I guess too un-PC in the Age of CACA.
They are a primary source
Yet, your link puts them among the secondary sources…
This is also clearly shown by the failure of the recent climate to follow the GCR flux.
Smoke particles must also be a considerable source of atmospheric particles which cause water droplet nucleation, as well as dust storms. Everything in its measure…no wonder climate is such a wicked subject to understand. But I am amazed what we know compared to the 1960’s when I was a student. Makes me wonder how we got so bamboozled by the ‘carbon’ parade we have had the last 30 years.
IMO that label applies to the subjects upon which the GCRs act. Since they wouldn’t be sources without the GCRs, which affect so many of them, I interpret that to mean that GCRs are important, in making a variety of secondary sources into CCNs.
Maybe it’s only semantics, but the fact remains that without GCR flux, many sources of clouds would be missing.
Earthling September 21, 2017 at 11:51 am
We would know and understand a lot more about climate had real climatology not been hijacked by GIGO computer gaming CACA hucksters for the past 30 years or more. NOAA and NASA should never have been granted access to the supercomputers designed to model thermonuclear reactions.
Maybe it’s only semantics, but the fact remains that without GCR flux, many sources of clouds would be missing.
That is not the point. Rather, what is important is how large the impact is, and so far it has not been demonstrated that the source is important, e.g. the climate has varied opposite to the predicted effect of GCRs..
lsvalgaard September 21, 2017 at 12:31 pm
During solar minima like the Maunder, the correlation is strong.
Please show a plot of cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity during the Maunder Minimum…
Recent solar activity has been low, yet the climate has been warm. So, no correlation there.
Actually, earth has been cooler during recent lower solar magnetism, except for the effect of El Nino.
The Maunder Minimum was cloudier than before and after it, as shown by weather records and even artwork. Which is only to be expected during the depths of the LIA.
That cosmic ray flux was higher is shown by the isotopic record, as per this from your excellent resource site:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/IAU2011_Miyahara.pdf
Also during the Dalton Minimum.
From that excellent resource site:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/GCR-Climate-Corr.pdf
“no correlation”
http://www.leif.org/EOS/No-Cloud-Cover-GCR-Link.pdf
“The contribution of CR to ‘climate change’ is quite negligible”
Comment at 11:01 AM above says ” Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the UAH6 temperature trend in about 2003. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. ”
To see what is going on see Figs 2 -12 from links above.
eg Fig 4
Note.
The RSS cooling trend in Fig. 4 and the Hadcrut4gl cooling in Fig. 5 were truncated at 2015.3 and 2014.2, respectively, because it makes no sense to start or end the analysis of a time series in the middle of major ENSO events which create ephemeral deviations from the longer term trends. By the end of August 2016, the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019.
The millennial solar activity driver peak is seen in Fig 10 at about 1991. There is a 12/13 year delay between the driver peak and the RSS temperature peak.
This inversion point is also seen nicely in Fig 11 at about 2001
The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of 2019
So, if it is not, are you prepared to retract your claims and speculation?
Isvalgaard,
I agree with you that “only source” is so strong as to be incorrect. It has long been known that salt crystals from ocean spray are a significant nucleation agent. It is also generally thought that dust, both terrestrial and even extraterrestrial (micro-meteor dust) may also play a significant role. The role of pollen I’m not as familiar with, but there is certainly no lack of pollen in the air. Then there are the anthropogenic aerosols that are regularly ‘washed’ out of the air. I’m not sure if they are gathered up on the downward travel of rain, or whether they are primary nucleating agents responsible for the formation of water droplets.
It has recently been discovered that bacteria can also not only act as nucleating agents, but can also affect the temperature at which the water droplets freeze. I may have to make some time to look into this in more detail and write something up for WUWT. Something that I have not seen anyone discuss is whether or not the massive production of antibiotics for human health and animal husbandry (80% of antibiotic production goes into animal feed), to where antibiotics can be detected routinely in surface waters, might have some impact on the Water Cycle through the effect on bacteria.
The real world is certainly more complex than GCRs being “THE source of the particles which cause water droplet nucleation and cloud formation in the upper atmosphere.”
I totally agree Dr. Svalgaard. No need to grasp at poorly supported alternative theories. The observed increase in temps is very poorly linked to CO2 and there is little verifiable evidence that the increase is beyond the boundaries of natural variation.
Nor that there is any likely danger of a looming catastrophe.
Yep. An alternative theory is not required to falsify the AGW hypothesis.
Nevertheless it would be helpful to understand the processes which do affect climate change, since CO2 isn’t the control knob thereupon.
I agree with the above. There is no need to put forward alternative theories, nor are we in a position to do so.
I would also point out that until we know and understand absolutely everything there is to know and understand about natural variation, ie., what it comprises of, the upper and lower bound of each constituent forcing, we will never be able to describe and understand how our climate works and what drives changes thereto. We will never know what role, if any at all, CO2 has in driving temperatures, nor the role of subtle change to solar irradiance (not simply that of changes in TSI, but also subtle changes in wavelength and cosmic rays).
Line 7 above should say RSS temperature trend.
Good short summary.
Seriously this is an embarrassment. So a guy who works for the fossil fuel industry did a talk there years ago and this is meant to somehow be relevant now?
You appear to be easily embarrassed. Your comment is disingenuous though, as you think that this entire site is an embarrassment as your comments over the years well prove.
At least my comments are current.
From a climatology perspective, three years is current.
From a climatology perspective, Dr. Riese’s 2014 presentation is a contemporary of Dr. Frank’s 2016 presentation.
This was posted under “presentations,’ not “today’s news.”
Simon what has changed in 3 years? More CO2? Higher temps? Less ice? More hurricanes? Stronger hurricanes?
Other than three record hot years in a row, nah, not much.
One record hot year… And regarding “the hottest year on record” meme…
Weather isn’t climate.
tsk tsk, let’s cherry pick a temperature record. good one.
Or you could try to look at all of the data at a comparable resolution, like petroleum and other economic geologists do
The warming observed in the instrumental temperature record doesn’t significantly deviate from the pre-existing Holocene pattern of climate change.
30-yr running averages of NH reconstruction and instrumental data were used to reflect climatology rather than weather. Over the past 2,000 years, the average temperature of the northern hemisphere has exceeded natural variability* (+/-2 std dev) 3 times: The Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age and the modern warming. Humans didn’t cause at least two of the three and the current one only exceeds natural variability only by about 0.2 °C. And this is a maximum, because the instrumental data have much higher resolution than the proxy data.
*Natural variability does not imply that excursions from it are unnatural.
Taking the climate back through the rest of the Holocene, we can see that “the hottest year on record” might not be so hot from any climate-relevant perspective.
Really,
The years 2014 and 2015 were not records. Last year, due to the Super El Nino, was barely one. This year won’t be a record.
So your assertion is false.
2016 was technically a record, but it was still inside the margin of error.
Doug September 21, 2017 at 1:41 pm
“Simon what has changed in 3 years? More CO2? Higher temps? Less ice? More hurricanes? Stronger hurricanes?”
Yes to your first three (temps and CO2 up, ice down… you forgot sea level is rising) and … the jury is still out on the hurricane thing. Lots of interest in why the latest batch have intensified so quickly. Interesting read here….
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ericmack/2017/09/18/hurricane-maria-category-5-dominica-irma-path-2017/#45e3f263601b
Doug September 21, 2017 at 1:41 pm
“Simon what has changed in 3 years? More CO2? Higher temps? Less ice? More hurricanes? Stronger hurricanes?”
And for the record, no one who knows what they are talking about is saying there will be more hurricanes….
Simon September 21, 2017 at 5:39 pm
Sea level rise is slowing down, not accelerating. Sure it’s still rising, as it has been doing for the past 300 years, but is still well below that of the Medieval Warm Period, the Roman WP, the Minoan WP and especially the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Nor is temperature rising. Except for the El Nino spike, there has been no statistically significant warming in this century.
Simon September 21, 2017 at 5:40 pm
No one who knows what he’s talking about claims that there will be and are more hurricanes, but where are the scientists speaking out to shut up the celebrities who are making that antiscientific claim?
You mean a strong El Nino, ie., a natural event and one which appears not to have been driven by CO2.
Let us wait and see what happens once the ENSO cycle is complete, and once we have seen a La Nina. It may well then be the case that the pause will reappear and will be over 20 years in duration and will mean that there has been no warming during the period when about 35% of all manmade CO2 emissions have been emitted.
If the pause reappears, it becomes more significant since it will cover/span an ever increasing amount of manmade CO2 emissions.
richard verney September 22, 2017 at 1:39 am
“Let us wait and see what happens once the ENSO cycle is complete, and once we have seen a La Nina. It may well then be the case that the pause will reappear and will be over 20 years in duration and will mean that there has been no warming during the period when about 35% of all manmade CO2 emissions have been emitted.
“If the pause reappears, it becomes more significant since it will cover/span an ever increasing amount of manmade CO2 emissions.”
So how confident are you that when the “La Nina” arrives we will see lows like we saw after the 98 El Nino? Because I’m very confident we wont. The earth has warmed a whole lot since then.
I do not make predictions about the future, since we have so little knowledge or understanding of the climate and how it works.
The satellite appears more sensitive to warm ocean temperatures (eg., El Nino events) and less sensitive to cool ocean temperature (eg. La Nina events). This is possibly a consequence of convection. When oceans are warm, the heat rises to the altitudes where the satellite takes its measurements and this leads to a strong response in the data. When oceans are cool, there is simply less convection up to the altitude at which the satellite takes its measurements, and thus one see a muted response.
If one looks at the satellite data there is only a slight warming trend (probably not statistically significant) between inception (1979) and up to the Super El Nino of 1997/98, and then there is a step change in temperature coincident with that event and the decay therefrom, whereafter there is no statistical warming until the run up and through the strong El Nino of 2015/16.
Now there was no step change in temperature following the strong El Nino of 2010, and we will have to wait and see over the next 2 to 3 years whether the decay from the strong 2015/16 El Nino and any eventual La Nina leads to a similar pattern as seen with the 2010 strong El Nino, or a similar pattern as seen with the Super El Nino of 1997/98.
If patterns are similar to the 2010 strong El Nino then the pause will very probably make a reappearance. Of course, it depends to a very large extent upon the extent that there is a strong La Nina, or a La Nina that lingers for a long time. The current ENSO forecasts are for a La Nina at the end of 2017/early 2018, but the forecasts of ENSO are not particularly good, and no one is able to forecast with any accuracy whether the event will be weak or strong. Of course, it takes several months before the satellite data responds to ENSO events.
Since around 2006, there has been quite a significant fall in the North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content (according to ARGO data), and if that fall continues, then that also may come into play.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-OHC-Duchez-16.jpg
But I make no predictions. The facts will speak for themselves, in due time.
Yet another desperate attempt to dismiss what you can’t refute.
Refuted
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
Simon,
We were recently discussing in another post by David how a text on oceanography, written in 1942, is still being used. Yes, sometimes information gets superseded by new findings, but not always. It isn’t just the date of publication or presentation that is important. Complaining that the presenter actually knows something about fossil fuels is really just an ad hominem attack. Three years may be relevant, but you didn’t provide any information to establish the relevancy in this case. I’d suggest that if you want to be taken seriously that you provide some specific, relevant objections, and not just snarky comments that make you look clever, in your mind.
Simon,
I just realized that the IPCC AR5 report came out 4 years ago. Would you suggest that it be ignored because it is too old to be relevant?
Clyde
If recent data is more relevant. Yep.
@Simon, well we have a new paper saying the IPCC models are all wrong, and it is more recent than AR5, so I guess we should now accept the new findings! Ready to do that?
The sound quality of the video is horrible — too much volume, too little clarity to articulate the words — can’t watch it because of that.
Do’t worry, you didn’t miss anything.
I would like to know where is the evidence for the statement that “None of the climate models employed today adequately address the influence of water vapor”. This is a very
strong claim stating that climate models have gotten the basic physics wrong and not only that gotten well-understood physics wrong.
If this claim is true then it would be easy to verify. The source code for global climate models are available online so all you have to do is state which lines of code are wrong
and why. Otherwise you are just making unsupported claims and there is no reason to take them seriously.
Everyone of the models assumes that RH will stay constant with temperature. Real world science shows that this not the case.
Again Mark, show me the lines in the code where this assumption is made? Otherwise this is gossip
rather than a valid criticism.
Germinio/Geronimo,
Which is your handle?
Clyde,
Either “Germinio/Geronimo”. I can’t spell to save my life.
cheers,
Neil
I always thought it was Geronimo too… and just assumed Apaches lacked a sense of humor… 😆
Just googled his publication record:
Riese, W.C. and Brookins, D.G., 1984, The Mount Taylor Uranium Deposit, San Mateo, N.M., U.S.A.: Uranium, v. 1, pp. 189-209.
Riese, W.C. and Arp, G.K., 1986, Biogeochemical prospecting in the Stillwater (Pt) complex, Montana (abstract): in Carlisle, D., et al., eds., Mineral Exploration: Biological Systems and Organic Matter: Rubey Volume V: Prentice-Hall, New York, pp. 170-182.
Michaels, G.B. and Riese, W.C., 1986, Microbiological exploration for mineral deposits – a new technique: Applied Geochemistry, v. 1, n. 1, pp. 103-109.
Riese, W.C., Herald, C.J. and Flammang, J.A., 1986, The application of advanced statistical analysis to interpretation of geochemical data from glaciated terrains, Northwest Territories, Canada: in Prospecting in Areas of Glaciated Terrain-1986: Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, London, pp. 151-162.
Stednick, J.D., Klem, R.B. and Riese, W.C., 1987, Temporal variation of metal concentrations in biogeochemical samples over the Royal Tiger Mine, Colorado, Part 1: Within year variation: Jour. Geochem. Explor., v. 28, n. 1, pp. 75-88.
Riese, W.C. and Riese, A.C., 1988, Prediction of geochemical formation damage in the Vicksburg Formation of South Texas: SPE 18132, in proceedings of the annual meeting of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, Houston, Oct. 2-5.
Riese, W.C., Hill, W.A., Rosen, R.N., Olsen, R.S., and Sudduth, D.N., 1990, Sequence stratigraphy of the Miocene System, offshore Texas – Alternative models and their global implications: in Proceedings of the Eleventh Annual GCSSEPM Foundation Research Conference – Gulf Coast Sequence Stratigraphy: Concepts and Practices, Houston, Dec. 2-5, pp. 299-306.
Snyder, G.T., Riese, W.C., Franks, S., Fehn, U., Pelzmann, W.L., Gorody, A.W. and Moran, J.E., 2003, Origin and history of waters associated with coalbed methane: 129I, 36Cl, and stable isotope results from the Fruitland Formation, Colorado and New Mexico: Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta, v.67, n. 23, pp. 4529-4544.
Riese, W.C., Pelzmann, W.L. and Snyder, G.T., 2005, New insights on the hydrocarbon system of the Fruitland Formation coalbeds, northern San Juan Basin, Colorado and New Mexico: in Warwick, P., ed., GSA Special Publication on Coal Geology, Chapter 6.
Extensively written and lectured on various topics in economic geology including biogeochemistry, geomicrobiology, isotope geochemistry, uranium ore deposits, sequence stratigraphy and coalbed methane petroleum systems. Author or co-author of 28 papers, 53 abstracts, 11 U.S. patents and 48 international patents.
So basically no expertise in climate science or physics. Just a petroleum geologist. Maybe Ill get my mother to post here also.
Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
“Argumentum ad hominem fallacy.”
Wrong. Saying someone does not have relevant experience to the matter being discussed is not attacking the person, it is stating a fact.
An argumentum ad hominem fallacy is an argument against the man, or the source of the argument, rather than an argument against your opponent’s argument or position.
An ad hominem fallacy doesn’t have to take the form of an attack on the person or their character.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
OK, David, the next time you go to the hospital, and need a procedure, and ask the doctor if he has experience in this area – I’ll tell the doctor to accuse you of argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
My wife and I are both geoscientists. She has been battling cancer since 2001. We double and triple check every diagnosis and recomendation… which includes extensive research. Almost of her doctors actually rely on her input. MRI’s, CAT scans, PET scans and all other medical imaging methods are governed by the same signal processing principles as seismic imaging.
We currently have 10 dogs. We recently saved one by refuting a veterinarian and taking our findings to anothet vet. The first veterinary neurosurgeon missed an obviously bulging disc.
Last year, I found a $50k tax deduction that my CPA missed… and we kicked the IRS’s ass when they tried to audit us.
We double and triple check EVERYTHING. And never hesitate to overrule and/or fire doctors, accountants and lawyers, irrespective of the collections of letters after their names.
From a signal theory perspective, climate data are almost indistinguishable from geological and geophysical data. For geoscientists, second guessing meteorologists and climatologists is trivial compared to second guessing MD’s, DVM’s, CPA’s and JD’s.
The only professionals I don’t challenge are HR, IT and HSE… because, even when I’m right, it doesn’t matter.
Steve McIntyre is a geologist, too, yet he tore Michael Mann a new one over the hockey puck charlatan’s moronic statistical “analysis”. MM has less than no expertise in anything relating to climatology. Mann’s MPhil and PhD are in geology, BTW.
Steve McIntyre is a mathematician, by education, with a background in mining economics.
NASA’s top climate “scientist” is a mathematician with no background in Earth Science at all.
While Steve McIntyre was overanalyzing Mann’s commas, climate scientists were repeating his work over and over, using different techniques and approaches. The work stands.
And “Bruce” was going after a pub record not a pedigree, and he found nothing relevant for Riese.
MM actually has both, a damn good pub record and a pedigree.
MBH 98/99 was thoroughly debunked and never reproduced. Apart from splicing high resolution instrumental data onto low resolution proxy data, Mann’s subsequent reconstructions look nothing like MBH98/99.
Mickey has a record of publishing tricks in order to feed at the public trough. Rusty has record of publishing useful science, in order to help private enterprise pay the taxes which fund Mickey’s packs of tricks.
I stand corrected on Steve’s education prior to entering the mining business.
Really,
Please cite the “work” by “climate scientists” which shows that the Hockey Stick “stands”.
Thanks.
climate scientists using the same flawed data and same flawed techniques, unsurprisingly got the same flawed results.
Far from over analyzing commas, McIntyre proved conclusively that the methods used by Mann were wrong and were designed to create hockeystick shapes out of even random data.
David Middleton: “MBH 98/99 was thoroughly debunked and never reproduced.”
Sixto “Please cite the “work” by “climate scientists” which shows that the Hockey Stick “stands””
Marcott ’13.
You guys love to say that Mann’s work was debunked, but that is only in the alt-universe of WUWT. Not in real-science-land.
I have been saying for years that you guys should publish like normal people, but now it looks like the emperor has no clothes. You have nothing of value to publish.
so I guess it’s good you stick to cherry picking temperature records.
Marcott 13 bore no resemblance to MBH98/99. And the authors even stated that their “hockey stick” had no statistical significance.
Mann’s subsequent reconstructions restored the MWP and LIA and were broadly consistent with Moberg, Esper, Ljungvist and Marcott… apart from ths 20th century, where Mann spliced in the instrumental data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/
Marcott 2013 had a resolution of 140-400 years. At that resolution, the instrumental record would be a single point.
Middleton says: “Marcott 13 bore no resemblance to MBH98/99. ”
Not so. It was longer. It was based on different records. but to say it “bore no resemblance” is silly and it demonstrates the lack of understanding you have for the study. Actually, I thought it was bettor done, as a study done 15 years later should be.
“And the authors even stated that their “hockey stick” had no statistical significance.”
So what? any idiot could mentally superimpose the modern instrument record on their study. Maybe you are just not very good at this stuff.
Mann 2008 bore no resemblance to MBH98/99. Mann 2008 was broadly consistent with Marcott 2013.
Therefore, MBH 98/99 bore no resemblance to Marcott 2013.
Superimposing the high frequency instrumental record onto low frequency proxy data without degrading the instrumental data to the resolution of the proxy data violates basic principles of signal theory. Anyone who has ever worked with the integration of well log data and seismic data (petroleum geologists) would grasp this concept.
“NASA’s top climate “scientist” is a mathematician with no background in Earth Science at all.”
Interesting how you failed to mention his 190+ peer reviewed papers in climatology.
I was referring to his academic background.
The point being that “cllimate scientist” is a rather nebulous phrase.
You refer to his academic background as a way to say he is no more qualified to write about climate change than Dr. Rusty Riese. Yet Mann has written 190+ peer reviewed papers on climate change, whereas Riese has written none. Big difference.
That was not the intent of my comment.
OK, I’ll take you at your word. But to me the “nebulous” issue is no different than in any other discipline. Workers can enter a field with relevant educational background, or without. That’s nearly impossible in the legal and medical fields, of course, but in others (for example, programming), being self taught is a path. But the biggest factor in answering the “is he/she a xxx?” question is output of work produced in that field. I’d rather have a self taught active programmer write a program for me than a computer science major that hasn’t written code in 20 years.
I would prefer that anyone other than me… write a computer program for me… 😆
Thomas Gold (the abiogenic oil astrophysicist) has probably written more papers on petroleum geology than 99% of petroleum geologists have… largely because we mostly have day jobs and don’t publish papers. That doesn’t make him a petroleum geologist. It just makes him voluminously wrong.
Most petroleum geologists spend much of their time reconstucting depoistional environments of sedimentary basins. Depositonal environments are dictated by physical geography and climatology. Most geologists have a very deep understanding of paleoclimatology. We have to in order to do our jobs. Most of us also only “publish” for our employers.
Getting back to logical argument… review to comments by Dr. Leif Svalgaard, a genuine solar physicist. Note how he specifically argued against one of Dr. Riese’s positions. Dr. Svalgaard’s argument was totally devoid of ad hominem, ad vericundian, ad populum and ad ignoratum fallacies.
Life is short. There are 1000s of folks posting papers about climate change (on both sides). If you want to spend every waking hour of your day reading papers by folks that have not built up a body of work in climatology, go for it.
Life is short. That’s why we double and triple check every medical diagnosis and/or recommendation… including those for our dogs.
Bruce,
You said, “Just a petroleum geologist.” Perhaps you don’t understand the titles of the things you listed. He is more than “Just a petroleum geologist.” And who are you to judge him? However, David is right. You should be judging his claims and not his expertise. Perhaps you are not up to critiquing his claims and personal attacks are the best you can do.
But it is so much easier to attack the person, then to refute the argument.
It must be very psychologically damaging to be pin one’s hopes on a coming catastrophe just to be prove right.
Besides which, geologists do study physics.
http://exploredegrees.stanford.edu/schoolofearthsciences/geologicalandenvironmentalsciences/#bachelorstext
Plus chemistry, biology and a lot of math and statistics.
Mann must have skipped statistics classes.
And the history of the past thousand years, too. Mann 98 in inconsistent with recorded history, which is but another set of proxies for temperature.
The whole Hockey Stick Trick was to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”, while exaggerating recent warming beyond all recognition.
Shameless chicanery. No wonder the charlatan is afraid to go to court against the great Mark Steyn.
I might add that all sciences are historical to some extent, but geology perhaps the most, in there with biology and paleontology. Astrophysics of course studies the history of the universe, but the others I mentioned that of our planet.
Sounds like you think you are smarter than your mother, maybe she just had different priorities.
Ever think of that ?
A humble scientist is a wise scientist, because the science is never ever settled.
If it was settled, scientists would be out of work .
It is mostly that some of the basic ASSUMPTIONS are wrong:
1. Water vapor is not input as an independent variable but instead “tropospheric temperature, water vapor and clouds induced by the RF of CO2”. Global average water vapor is increasing about twice as fast as it would be based only on liquid water temperature increase and has been since before 1960.
2. The GCMs do not account for thermalization, i.e. that IR energy absorbed by CO2 molecules is immediately (starting in about 0.0002 microseconds) shared with surrounding molecules. It takes CO2 molecules about 6 microseconds to emit a photon after it has absorbed one so thermalization essentially always happens. Thermalized energy carries no identity of the molelcule that absorbed it.
3. They do not consider that IR from gas molecules depends on the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of molecule energy which is different from the Planck spectrum of IR from liquids and solids.
This is in response to Germinio
Again Dan, the code for any number of climate models is available online. Show me where these
assumptions are made or not and then we can talk about it. Otherwise there is no point making such
assertions.
Geronimo,
Would it were that it was as easy as picking up a book by Herman Melville and reading the chapter describing the Great White Whale, and understanding it. First, I’m not sure that the code is available as you claim, and the extent to which it is documented is questionable. It is probably written in parallelized Fortran with calls to subroutines written in other languages such as Assembly. I have trouble going back and understanding code that I wrote years ago, even though I thought that I was documenting it adequately at the time. You are asking that people who are not being paid to spend tens of hours to wade through what might well be unintelligible to all but those who are actually working with it on a daily basis. What is needed is a thoroughly annotated flow-diagram of the code, with all the equations and assumptions for parameterization clearly stated. With such a document, I might even sit down and study it. However, I wouldn’t consider subjecting myself to trying to understand what is probably spaghetti code that has evolved over decades.
You said, “Show me where these assumptions are made or not and then we can talk about it.” If I or Dan were to invest the time to do what you ask, would you be up to intelligently conversing with us on the topic? I get the impression that you are a layman. If so, then you are making an offer you can’t deliver on.
Hi Clyde,
Your comments about the issues of wading through the code are all correct. However if people want to make claims about what is or is not in the codes then they need to be able to verify them. All I would like to see is some evidence for these claims about what is or is not included in global climate models. The code is publically available so it is possible to verify any such claims but no-one does. I have never seen any analysis of the models showing where they are wrong at the level of the code itself.
While no doubt there are errors in the code and there are issues with some of the assumptions made most of the comments here suggest that the models are lacking in the basic physics and that I find hard to believe. There may be issues with some of the subtleties but if you wan to claim that they have the basic physics wrong then I would like to see the evidence.
None other than the Father of Hurricanology, the late, great Bill Gray, found out that water vapor feedback is net negative, not positive as falsely assumed without evidence by GIGO GCM computer gamers. This is only reasonable, on a self-regulating water world.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2011/03/paper-water-vapor-feedback-is-negative.html
No wonder the GCMs suck so massively at modeling the planet upon which humans actually live.
Which of course means, need I point out, that ECS in the real, complex climate system should be less than the 1.2 degrees C per doubling of CO2 derived from lab studies. ECS might even be negative, depending upon other feedbacks. But most likely it lies in the range of 0.0 to 1.0 degrees C, rather than IPCC’s fanciful WAG of 1.5 to 4.5 degrees, based upon nothing more than two “estimates” from the 1970s (one by the even then astronomical Jim Hansen) and not improved upon since.
Geronimo,
I’ll tell you what I’ll do. I’ll make time in the next few days to look through the chapter on computer modeling in the AR5 document. By the time I get done, probably no one will be reading this thread. But, the next time the topic comes up, I’ll have the answers. I might suggest that you do the same to see if there is anything in the chapter to contradict MarkW’s or Dan’s claims.
So Sixto,
What at the errors in the code?
“ECS might even be negative, depending upon other feedbacks. ”
huh? I that why we are having record temps lately? It seems that you are false skeptic.
reallyskeptical September 21, 2017 at 5:46 pm
So Sixto,
What at the errors in the code?
“ECS might even be negative, depending upon other feedbacks. ”
huh? I that why we are having record temps lately? It seems that you are false skeptic.
—–
No, it’s called El Nino. It has nothing to do with CO2. You know that right?
Really,
We are not having record temps lately, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. But even if we were, there is no reason to imagine that CO2 has anything to do with it.
I don’t have to show you the code. The fact is that GCMs imply positive H2O feedback, which is not in evidence in the real world. This should be obvious, since absent feedbacks, ECS would be 1.2 degrees C, yet IPCC says that the range is 1.5 to 4.5 degrees C, and all the models show ECS higher than 1.5 degrees C.
Garbage In, Garbage Out. As should be obvious, since the models fail so miserably to reproduce observations.
So Sixto,
let’s see.
2014 record. Non El Niño.
2015 record. Non El Niño.
2016 record. Okay, finally, El Niño.
2017 not record, but prob’ly over 2015.
So it looks like we don’t really need El Niños to make records anymore..
Whoops, and sorry, I don’t go with only one temp record.
Really,
Dunno from what alternative universe you derive your “records”, but the cooked book “surface data sets” don’t count. They are packs of lies.
Here are the data for objective reality on Planet Earth:
2014: No record.
2015: No record.
2016: Not statistically significant “record”.
2017: No record.
Before the El Nino year of 2016, the trend was cooling.
@ reallyskeptical …the ENSO regions were predominantly positive through all of the years which you indicate. So maybe it wasn’t a full blown El Nino, but conditions in the regions were just a step away from being an El Nino. Your comment shows ignorance, imo, of how much the ENSO regions affect global temps. It doesn’t have to be a full blown El Nino for there to be a warming effect globally.
“but the cooked book “surface data sets” don’t count.”
only in the alternate universe of WUWT. To those of us that live on the surface, it matters.
And, speaking of records, look at the data which are harder to fake, although I’m sure that NOAA would try were it not for the new administration.
There have been no new record lows in Arctic sea ice extent since 2012. To go five years without a new lower low record is UNPRECEDENTED! since 1979. The Great Goddess Gaia has spoken!
Earth is cooling.
reallyskeptical September 21, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Except that we don’t live on the surface as imagined by the book cookers.
On the real surface rather than the cooked book “surface” (which in any case isn’t for most of the planet), Earth is cooling.
@ Sixto…the Greenland SMB massive gain sure looks like a major clue to me about the direction the climate is taking, along with recent arctic conditions as you point out. Also, note the rapid and substantial change in the ENSO regions, very blue of late, deep blue. Also of note imo, is the very large area of cooling waters in the Pacific Ocean to the south and north of the ENSO regions, as well as points elsewhere in the global oceans…
Gold,
It’s sad that we’re reduced to relying on proxy data for the 21st century, so corrupted are the supposedly instrumental records, but I agree that Mother Nature is screaming, “Turn on the heat!”
The fake thermostat readings of failed mathematician Gavin and his fellow unindicted conspirators are being swept away by objective reality.
Should hurricanes actually become more frequent and powerful, we’ll have another datum showing a cooler world.
sixto: On the real surface Earth is cooling.
Wow. Sort of delusional, you are. Are you one of those scientists that said we are in for a long term cooling in the 1970s?
Really,
I could not possibly be more different from those “scientists”. They extrapolated a 30 year trend indefinitely out into the future. That’s CACA preachers, not me.
I recognize that climate is cyclic, and that we’re not due for a return to a cooling cycle, as after the warming cycle that ended in the 1940s.
And Mother Nature agrees with me. Earth is cooling. Corrupt gatekeepers cook the books to try to stave off reality for a little while longer, but in the end Mother Nature will swat them down like the cucarachas that they have the ignominy to be.
As regards the water vapour point, one of the problems is the course resolution of the models. It is accepted that models cannot replicate thunderstorms and the like, because they do not have the resolution required. Indeed, it is well accepted (a point conceded by the IPCC), that models perform very badly with precipitation,and the like.
Further, if I recall correctly, the models also cannot properly replicate the ITCZ. I seem to recall that Willis has a post on that very point. The ITCZ is of course a major driver of climate in the tropics.
Further to my above post regarding the ITCZ, here is a a paper that looks at
See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-015-2468-6
From the abstract:
Ger – I couldn’t find any of the code. Searching through that ‘haystack’ to determine whether there is a ‘needle’ is not my idea of a good time.
The quote is from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/drafts/WG1AR5_SOD_Ch08_All_Final.pdf page 8-8.
RF = Radiative Forcing. They say that water vapor and clouds are induced by RF of CO2. I discovered where the WV comes from (click my name). CO2 has nothing to do with it.
There is no reference to thermalization or Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas molecule energy
reallyskeptical September 21, 2017 at 6:12 pm
Whoops, and sorry, I don’t go with only one temp record.
—
No, you go with the ones who think ship bucket data is better than ARGO data, which is supposedly accurate to 0.001 C, and that was after ARGO initially showed cooling, and adjusted the data to show (some) warming. It really doesn’t get any more absurd than that.
If you can’t see the confirmation bias, you are either incredibly naive, or a koolaid drinking addict.
Right. And you prob’ly believe that the UAH record is the best because it shows the lowest warming rates. What ever.
Of course if you actually looked are the changes you would see that they don’t change the modern record at all.
Why is it that year after year the SST is higher? You fake skeptics should think about it.
Really,
In the real world, SST isn’t higher every year.
You should really learn how to gather and analyze data.
But then you’d have to learn how to handle the truth, which it appears you can’t.
I have spent about 30 years examining ship log data so I am familiar with ocean temperatures measured over a very small percentage of ocean.
The fact is that SST whilst showing much yearly (and multidecadal) variation, has not changed very much, with some ocean basins showing no significant change over the last 60 or so years. In some of the articles on Hurricanes, I have posted data showing that the North Atlantic has not warmed these past 20 years, and today has about the same SST as it had back in the 1950s, and the SST of the South Atlantic has not warmed these past 30 years.
One of the interesting points is that SST is varying differently in the various ocean basins and that is not consistent with CO2 which is said to be a well mixed gas such that its driving force should be broadly similar across all ocean basins.
The different variations of SST across the various ocean basins suggests that some factor other than CO2 is driving SST. It is likely that this is changes to patterns of cloudiness (which impacts upon the amount of solar irradiance received and absorbed at depth) coupled with slight variations in ocean circulation patterns which re distribute absorbed energy in 3 dimensions.
One of the things geologists do is to try to understand the context of an anomaly. That’s why we spend so much time on regional mapping and interpretation.
Looking at averages, disguises what is actually going on in the real world, and whilst I would accept (based upon the limited data available to us) that the average SST of the oceans, taken as a whole, has risen slightly these past 50 years, when one looks at each ocean basin individually a very different picture is painted which shows that there is no simple explanation. In fact, SSTs have shown little increase in the past 20 years, as one would expect with the pause and where warmists sought to explain away the pause that the warmth was hiding in the deep oceans, not the SST.
There has been at least half a dozen papers these past couple of years showing how the North Atlantic has been recently cooling, and how the SST, and the OHC is today, less than it was in the 1940s and 1950s.
Here is a plot from the recent Reynolds et al paper:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-SSTs-Reynolds-17_.jpg
You will note that the SST of the North Atlantic is less warm than it was in the 1940s and 1950s.
One can see a similar theme if one looks at the recent Duchez et al paper which looks at North Atlantic Ocean Heat Content; Here is the take home plot:
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Holocene-Cooling-North-Atlantic-OHC-Duchez-16.jpg
You will see how the OHC has fallen significantly since 2005, and is today considerably less than it was in the late 1950s.
Materially, there is no correlation whatsoever between SST/OHC and CO2, and this therefore strongly suggests that CO2 is not driving temperatures, and that SST and ocean temperatures is controlled by something other than CO2. Not surprising given that any DWLWIR cannot penetrate the oceans by more than about 6 microns of vertical depth and given that the heat flux (energy flow) is upwards, any absorbed energy from DWLWIR can do little other than assist in driving evaporation, rather than warming the oceans.
I am not going to go through the various ocean basins, but the fact is that some show some warming, some show all but no warming (ie., broadly similar temperatures) and some show cooling, eg,
I emphasise that the material point is that there no correlation whatsoever between SST/OHC and CO2, and this therefore strongly suggests that CO2 is not driving temperatures, and that SST and ocean temperatures is controlled by something other than CO2.
Dan,
I am no expert but your claims appear to make no sense.
1. My understanding is that water vapour is not an input variable but rather an output
of the models. The models include rates of evaporation from the oceans etc and then that
water vapour is carried up into the upper atmosphere where it condenses back releasing energy which is the major source of heating of the atmosphere. Water vapour is not independent in any sense but rather is determined by the temperature of the atmosphere.
2. I am not sure what the point about thermalisation is. GCMs do not keep track of each individual CO2 molecule and the time steps are much to large to worry about whether or not each molecule has absorbed or emitted a photon. These effects are averaged over each cell in the simulations. There are no individual photons in the simulations.
3. Again it is unclear what this means. Molecular energy is different from the Planck spectrum. If anything you are suggesting that the models are using the wrong formula in their simulations. Or that they are failing in the basic physics. Can you be more precise?
Ger – 1. The models handle water vapor completely wrong. It should be an input. It is wrong to determine water vapor on the basis of atmosphere temperature. They are related only at 100% relative humidity, i.e. in clouds.
2. I described the physics at the molecule level. It is an objective of modeling to properly account for the net effect of the physics at the level of the model.
3. The Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution of gas molecule energy appears to be a new concept to you. I suggest you look it up in Wikipedia and spend some time with my blog/analysis (click my name).
All of these lies have been thoroughly debunked many, many times, so there’s no point in my saying more about this denier’s screed.
Could you please be specific as to alleged or imagined debunkings?
Thanks.
@ M Kelly…thanks for stopping by. Come again when you can spend more time. Perhaps next time you can add something to the conversation.
It was my test run as a climate fanatic. It’s really very easy to say nothing, and arouse a lot of fury.
Read some of my previous posts. I’m not just a “skeptic.” I know enough about engineering measurement and computational fluid dynamics to know that “climate science” is complete BS.
Mic – Ditto
Remember, the 97% number has also infamously cropped up again in another publication.
That scandalously fraudulent Cook et al. (2013) 97% paper has been covered by many people. One of the most readable accounts is by José L. Duarte here: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/cooking-stove-use-housing-associations-white-males-and-the-97?
Below is a very good article as to why articles such as this one by Riese are so detrimental to the debate on what should be the US approach to climate change. The longer the US delays over climate change, the worse it is going to be in the long-run, particularly given the current actions being taken by the EPA under the pro-lobbyist/pro-corporate stooge, Scott Pruitt:
THE PARIS AGREEMENT DISPUTE IS A DISTRACTION. THE REAL BATTLE IS PLAYING OUT IN THE EPA.
https://theintercept.com/2017/09/20/paris-agreement-climate-change-trump-epa/
More drivel…
It might take Trump’s reelection, but the EPA swamp will be drained.
iva – I disclose a couple things the EPA got wrong at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
I believe that man’s influence on climate change is overblown as well. But if the sun is a major driver, should we not see a diminution in the size of the ice caps on Mars? Has this been observed?
It depends on how the Sun might be a major driver. If the cyclical variations in solar activity is the underlying driver of long-term ocean oscillations… And those long-term ocean oscillations are the primary driver of Holocene climate cycles (quasi-periodic fluctuations), Mars would not exhibit the same response to changes in solar activity.
Also, IMO the sun has influence on earth climate by effect of solar magnetism/GCR/low clouds in addition to (and coincident with) variation of TSI.