New research yields old result: Climate warming slow, steady. Observed value is half that of CMIP5 climate models.
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Nov. 29, 2017) — The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years, according to research at The University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH).
If you take away the transient cooling in 1983 and 1992 caused by two major volcanic eruptions in the preceding years, the remaining underlying warming trend in the bottom eight kilometers (almost five miles) of the atmosphere was 0.096 C (about 0.17° Fahrenheit) per decade between January 1979 and June 2017.
That was unexpectedly close to the 0.09 C warming trend found when similar research was published in 1994 with only 15 years of data, said Dr. John Christy, director of UAH’s Earth System Science Center.
This work might also indirectly affirm recent research showing the atmosphere is less sensitive to the warming effects of rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases than global climate models have suggested.
“We indicated 23 years ago — in our 1994 Nature article — that climate models had the atmosphere’s sensitivity to CO2 much too high,” said Christy, the lead author in the study, which has been accepted for publication in the 2017 fourth quarter edition of the Asia- Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and is available online. “This recent paper bolsters that conclusion.”
Mathematically removing the natural but transient climatic effects of volcanoes and El Niño/La Niña Pacific Ocean warming and cooling events leaves an underlying climate trend, all or some part of which might be attributed to human causes — including enhanced greenhouse forcing caused by rising levels of CO2 and other manmade greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
At present, however, there is no accepted tool or technique for confidently estimating how much of the warming in the past 38+ years might be due to natural causes.
“For the purposes of this research, we assumed the climate was stable during that time, that the natural climate trend would have been zero,” Christy said. “If the natural trend was zero, then the climate models say the atmosphere is more than twice as sensitive to CO2 as the data might suggest.
“Of course, if the natural trend was greater than zero — if the natural climate was warming even a little bit — then the models have the atmospheric sensitivity to CO2 even further out of whack than that.”
The paper also describes a new index for determining the sensitivity of the climate system to extra greenhouse gases. Previously, indexes of this kind were based on the surface temperature.
Christy and UAH’s Dr. Richard McNider created a new index: the Tropospheric Transient Climate Response, which is based on the bulk atmosphere. That is a more representative quantity for any impact of increased greenhouse gases.
“The idea behind this index is to determine what the temperature increase will be by the decade when anthropogenic greenhouse gas forcing — which is dominated by CO2 — doubles what it was in about 1880,” Christy said. “We should reach that level — about 560 ppm of CO2 — in the latter half of this century.
“From our observations we calculated that value as 1.1 C (almost 2° Fahrenheit), while climate models estimate that value as 2.3 C (about 4.1° F),” Christy said. “Again, this indicates the real atmosphere is less sensitive to CO2 than what has been forecast by climate models. This suggests the climate models need to be retooled to better reflect conditions in the actual climate, while policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered.”
In their research, which was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Christy and McNider found the climatic effects of El Niño/La Niña warming and cooling events in the eastern equatorial Pacific Ocean largely cancelled each other out over the study period.
That left the El Chichon and Pinatubo volcanic eruptions in 1982 and 1991 as the remaining major natural perturbations to the climate trend, although that had as much to do with the timing of the eruptions as it did with the cooling caused by the nearly global distribution of volcanic ash in the upper atmosphere.
“Those eruptions happened relatively early in our study period, which pushed down temperatures in the first part of the dataset, which caused the overall record to show an exaggerated warming trend,” Christy said. “While volcanic eruptions are natural events, it was the timing of these that had such a noticeable effect on the trend. If the same eruptions had happened near the more recent end of the dataset, they could have pushed the overall trend into negative numbers, or a long-term cooling.
“By taking them out of the equation, we leave behind only that part of the climate influenced by nature’s long-term changes and human influences.”
Other researchers have tried to calculate the climate’s sensitivity using temperature data collected at the Earth’s surface. But that data lacks complete global coverage, especially over the oceans. Changes in the character of the land surface near thermometers (such as paving and urban growth) and changes in the thermometer instruments over time also add uncertainty to the data.
“Additionally, surface temperatures used for tracking climate change use the average of daily maximum and minimum temperatures,” said McNider, a distinguished professor emeritus at UAH. “Those minimum nighttime temperatures reflect only the temperature of a shallow layer of air near the surface and not temperatures in the deep layer of the atmosphere.”
Using satellite instruments to collect temperature data from the bulk atmosphere is a better and more robust tool for detecting the addition of energy related to extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Christy said.
The unadjusted climate trend in the deep troposphere from January 1979 to June 2017 was +0.155 C (about 0.279° F) per decade.¹ After adjusting for the volcanoes and other less significant effects, including the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation and the Pacific decadal oscillation, the trend drops to 0.096 C per decade — or about 0.364 C (0.66° F) total since December 1978.
Christy and McNider suggest two other possible explanations for the discrepancies between climate model forecasts and reality:
- The transfer of heat energy between the atmosphere and the ocean isn’t well understood, including the roles of wind, currents and ocean conditions. If more heat is transferred to the oceans than is accounted for by the models, that “is a negative atmospheric feedback, at least on shorter time scales.”
- Heat the models suggest should be staying in the atmosphere might instead be expelled more readily through the atmosphere into space, or is being more rapidly mixed into the oceans. In either case, that heat would not be available for warming the atmosphere.
“Also, if the atmosphere isn’t accumulating heat at the rate forecast by the models, then the theoretical positive climate feedbacks which were expected to amplify the CO2 effect won’t be as large,” McNider said. “For instance, one of the major climate feedbacks built into the models is increased water vapor. It was hypothesized that if CO2 warmed the atmosphere, the amount of water vapor — itself a powerful greenhouse gas — in the atmosphere should increase.
“The water feedback built into the models, however, depends first on warming in the deep layer of the atmosphere,” he said. “The lack of warming there means this feedback will be much less.”
As part of an ongoing joint project between UAH, NOAA and NASA, Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer, an ESSC principal scientist, use data gathered by advanced microwave sounding units on NOAA and NASA satellites to get accurate temperature readings for almost all regions of the Earth. This includes remote desert, ocean and rain forest areas where reliable climate data are not otherwise available.
Since the first microwave sounding unit was launched into orbit in November 1978, satellite-based instruments have measured the temperature of the atmosphere from the surface up to an altitude of about eight kilometers above sea level.
This is an especially important region of the atmosphere because climate models have forecast the deep layer of the lower atmosphere is the area where CO2-influenced warming should occur first and by the greatest amounts.
Once the monthly temperature data are collected and processed, they are archived for immediate access by atmospheric scientists in the U.S. and abroad.
The complete version 6 lower troposphere dataset is available here: http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
— 30 —
(1) The 0.155 C per decade trend reported here differs from the 0.13 C per decade trend recently reported in the Global Temperature Report, which is published monthly by UAH’s Earth System Science Center. The research reported here was done using an earlier version of the satellite microwave sounding unit dataset. That dataset was revised and updated, and the revisions published (Spencer et al., APJAS 2017) while the research reported here was under peer review.
The new 2017 paper: 2017_Christy_McNider (PDF)
The 1994 paper: 1994_ChristyMcNIder
It has to be fairly obvious now that the sensitivity of CO2 is less than previously thought. Maybe much less. If we agree that there are other factors such as UHI not only making collecting land based temps problematic, but actually adding thermal heat and water vapour to local atmospheric conditions, then an equal amount of supposed CO2 induced warming must be removed from the equation. As well as acknowledge that the entire temperature record is dubious at best.
The same for other natural variability such as solar cycles, or long term ocean circulation which we now understand much more than previous generations. The higher temperature predictions by the models from 10-15 years ago are definitely not materializing, so perhaps time that the IPCC re-define this sensitivity, and not continue parroting the same old story. There is a danger of crying wolf so much that it will become painfully obvious to everybody sooner or later.
But the UHI problem is compounded, in terestrial measurement, by the reduction in temperature reporting stations over the last decade or two, and the “migration” of temperature reporting stations to lower altitudes and lower latitudes, The coverage of of rural areas, the cneters of Africa and South America, and the oceans is not particularly good, except, of course, by satellite.
Earthling2 … at 10:25 am
It has to be fairly obvious now that the sensitivity of CO2 is less than previously thought.
Sensitivity of CO2 is not in doubt, 1.6K /doubling of CO2.
But the UN IPCC AGW hypothesis depended on WATER VAPOR in its effect. Since modelling water vapor is too complex they treated its effect on sensitivity as a fit parameter. That’s fine. But they determined the gain factor using relative temperature and not absolute temperature (which massively overestimates the sensitivity).
Plus, the expected CO2 effect on water vapor concentration is unknown. It is known that the water vapor concentration is affected by solar magnetic activity (evidenced by Forbush Decreases – see the work of Svensmark and Shaviv).
Christy is stating that the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is ~1 C if there is no underlying warming trend or cooling trend. I wonder how this would work out plugging that sensitivity to proxy estimated CO2 levels in the several thousand PPM level to proxies for what the temperature was then.
You’d have to know what the temperature would have been without the high CO2 levels. The problem is that there is no control Earth, where either CO2 or all other factors are held constant.
So that means that technically, the argument can never actually be won, one way or the other. At least in the short term. So is sort of true that we will never actually know what would have been had we not started using fossil fuels. But if the climate doesn’t accelerate with increasing temperatures over the years and decades to come, then we obviously have an honest answer about the sensitivity of CO2. Since it is logarithmic with increasing CO2 levels on increasing temps, and most of the LWIR that is delayed is in the first 200 ppmv, it is probably safe to assume that CO2 is not the monster that the greens, academics and politicians make it out to be. Or that the good Earth will ever experience run away global warming with additive CO2 going forward. We maybe have a 1/3 degree C ‘baked’ in to the present climate from human forcing, which is much better than a 1/3 degree C cooling.
Yep. As the article stated:
If none of the warming was natural, the climate sensitivity is low… TCR ~1.35 C, ECS ~1.75 C. If any of the warming was due to natural trends, the climate sensitivity is much lower…
David Middleton: “there is no control Earth”
We do have the planet Mars with its much simpler atmosphere of 95% CO2. You have said that you believe the temperature on Mars is higher than it would be if an equal mass of nitrogen replaced the Mars’ CO2.
I enjoy and have learned from your posts. I would really like to see you produce a graph of daily temperature swings on Mars (sine wave) and then show how that graph would look different with the CO2 replaced by hypothetical nitrogen. What is the amount and duration of the temperature variance? Does Mars shed temperature (> 100F) more slowly overnight? Does the Mars atmosphere warm quicker or more slowly during the morning?
My thought was that using proxy levels of several thousand PPM of CO2 would at least give an extreme bound of the effects of CO2. Because of the proxy record, i conclude the full-up Hansen runaway feedback scenario is implausible.
I’m 99.9% certain, I’ve never said anything that stupid.
David Middleton: – “I’m 99.9% certain, I’ve never said anything that stupid.”
I was surprised myself, so surprised that I copied it. From somewhere on or shortly before 11/22/2016, this is what you responded to me with:
[ We probably could measure it on Mars. It would just be insignificant. The problem is that the Martian atmosphere is too thin to retain much heat, with or without GHG’s. If the atmosphere was 95% N2 oxide instead of CO2, Mars would be even colder. ]
That last sentence is what puzzled me. I’ll gladly dismiss my request, and encourage you to continue with your informational posts to this site.
I misread your comment. I thought you posted that I said Mars would be warmer if nitrogen replaced the CO2. My bad.
Nitrogen (N2) is not a “greenhouse gas.” If Mars’ extremely thin atmosphere was composed of 95% N2 instead of 95% CO2, it would probably be even colder than it is.
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Venus_Express/Greenhouse_effects_also_on_other_planets
However, since there’s no way to replace Mars’ atmosphere with N2 and measure the temperature, we have the same problem as we have with Earth – No control planet with which to run an experiment.
According to Stefan-Boltzmann, Mars gets a 5 K boost from its minuscule greenhouse effect.
https://atmos.washington.edu/2002Q4/211/notes_greenhouse.html
Mars’ average surface temperature would be a frigid 213 K instead of its balmy 218 K if the CO2 was replaced by N2.
However, due to the huge diurnal temperature range on Mars, 5 K wouldn’t make any difference…
http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/mars/plots/MPF_temps_sol_06.gif
http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources/mars_data-information/temperature_overview.html
Tepidism rising . . ever so gently ; )
Maybe some moon work would show this?
I don’t think the Moon would be a very good control planet for Earth’s atmosphere.
David, you need to explain that word ‘control’ to mosher (and perhaps stokes) sometime when he brings up Arrhenius’ prediction about future warming. Might be tough as mosh goes into moron mode every time he says it. (explaining such a word brings up ghosts of inigo montoya past) We do actually have a control for the earth and that would be the ice ages. There is no way on god’s green earth that trace co2 can compete with water vapor during the glacial cycle. At just 4-5C warming, there is not enough warming to go around for all the various associated forcings and feedbacks. (ghg feedbacks are just one slice of the pie and co2 is just a small portion of that) The deduced warming for co2 during the glacial cycle would indicate that sensitivity is low, nowhere near the 3C ECS that warmists claim…
I think Mosh & Stokes probably understand the concept of a controlled experiment.
Shortly after Arrhenius demonstrated the greenhouse effect, Angstrom demonstrated that greenhouse warming was severely limited by bandwidth saturation. Neither one of them was 100% correct.
ECS might be 1.5 to 2 C. But, the sensitivity that matters is transient climate response (TCR). This is demonstrably less than 1.5 C and might be indistinguishable from Zero-point-Zero.
They sure don’t act like they understand it! (and i ain’t kiddin’ either)…
One would almost think their jobs or peer-reputation rested on them NOT understanding..
..and continuing to push what they MUST KNOW is an anti-science agenda-based farce.
Neither is DUMB enough not to know…… Therefore it is wilful and spiteful.
Nick, Why do you support the socialist global totalitarian lie that is AGW ?
David Middleton: Exactly! It is impossible to do this experiment. Other possibilities are that the models are UNDERESTIMATING the heating effect of CO2 but that the effect is being masked by an underlying natural cooling trend. Who knows? The whole exercise is futile and we should forget it and assume that we are intelligent and resourceful enough to adapt to whatever the future holds for us. Use the resources spent on this conjecture to help mankind out of the poverty and misery caused by a lack of cheap, abundant energy.
Trebla, there are no known
natural factors that would be
causing warming. got any?
Argumentum ad ignoratum fallacy.
What? Are you stupid? The Oceans store energy for over 100 years in the conveyor, we have decadal ocean cycles, as they move warm water around, when it moves into the NH, it causes global temps to go up because temps follow dew points.
(it’s the sun stupid)…
“(it’s the sun stupid)…”
and how does your chart show that?
after 1950 TSI is flat to declining. yet
temperatures keep increasing. how does
that happen?
(it’s the sun stupid)…
High solar activity correlates with warming, low solar activity correlates with cooling (stupid)…
afonz – your chart shows a flattening
and then decline of solar sunspots
from 1950 onward.
so how can the sun be
responsible for any
warming?
Crackpipe , are you really that stupid? Read my lips: high solar activity correlates with warming, low solar activity correlates with cooling. What you have presented here is a strawman argument. Solar activity since 1950 has been high, thus warming. (THAT’S the correlation)…
afonz – your chart shows
increasing temperatures while
solar activity is flat-to-slightly decreasing.
so how does that show that
solar activity is responsible for
modern warming?
what extra energy is pouring
into the earth’s climate system to cause
this warming?
poor crackpot has never boiled an egg.
Leave the stove on , and the water warms up.
Seems poor little mite even dipped out on “social science” at high school.
So sad.. …
“what extra energy is pouring
into the earth’s climate system to cause
this warming?”
WOW, you really don’t know anything, do you.
Maybe that is why your posts are all just empty bluster and comedy sketches.
You could compare the recent trend (High co2) with the trend over the first 100 years since coming out of the little ice age.
You could… If you had comparable data. Instrumental data have much higher resolution than proxy data.
Crackers345, the most important factor in major climate shifts of the past is likely the brightness of the Earth, particularly over the northern hemisphere. Higher overall cloudiness is what makes a brighter Earth, causing more overall sunlight to be reflected directly into space, never to enter the climate system at all. A higher percentage of cloud cover over northern land areas of course leads to cooler surface temperatures and more deposition, creating ice sheets, which then create a cooling feedback, which reflects even more marginal sunlight. Local and regional and perhaps even global cooling takes place, but it cannot cool the tropics too much, because the tropics must stay warm in order to pump lots of oceanic and atmospheric water to more northern climes to create the clouds and the deposition in the first place. Once the cooling reaches the tropics, the convection pump is slowed or turned off, and the northern land areas suddenly begin to receive much more direct sunlight that melt the ice sheets, because there is no longer enough convection to build the clouds and maintain the ice. As it melts, the glaciers pour massive amounts of fresh water into the oceans, which floats on top of the saline water and the existing currents, further inhibitsing convection, denying clouds the water vapor needed to form. With less cloudiness and less deposition, eventually the glaciers disappear, and the climate shift only balances out after the salinity of all that fresh water becomes more well mixed and the oceans convective currents are free to pump now warming water back northward at the surface.
The relative content of CO2 in the world’s oceans during these big shifts is probably not a significant factor in glacial to interglacial shifts, even when measurable. If it does play are role, it’s biggest contribution may be from CO2 starvation in land-based plants. That is to say, when CO2 gets too low, large areas of living plant life may die out, either through direct CO2 starvation, or more likely, via overgrazing by animal herds in an environment that now has a lower production level, and thereby creating deserts that release high volumes of cloud nucleating dust particles into the atmosphere.
Tom Halla wrote:
“Christy is stating that the sensitivity to doubling CO2 is ~1 C if there is no underlying warming trend or cooling trend”
he most certainly is not.
he’s saying tcr is ~ 1 K.
tcr is very different from
equilibrium climate sensitivity (ecs).
Very different… as in relevant vs irrelevant.
David, I don’t know
where you graph came from,
and you didn’t say (how come?),
but tcr and ecs are not close to
each other as that graph
suggests.
in any case, tom halla is
getting mixed up about what
christy+ actually wrote.
“David, I don’t know”
Your continued admission of total ignorance is not really required, crackpot.
Everybody already knows.
CO2 is only a negligibly small bit player, while the natural variability is the driver of the global temperature change.
Natural variability points to change in direction of acceleration from positive to negative (i.e. fall in temperatures) during next 2-3 decades, while the degree of the fall will be determined by solar activity. More details here
Natural variability doesn’t argue for altering the our current economic systems and collecting Trillions of dollars for re-distribution through the UN and NGO’s.
Hence natural variability can’t be the cause if you’re climateer scientist or an Al Gore pol trying to get in on the action.
vukcevic commented – “CO2 is only a negligibly small bit player”
sorry, that’s not what
the science says.
You wouldn’t have the vaguest clue what science says.
You have shown that in post after empty comedic post.
Produce the science that proves empirically that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.
Or remain forever, a low-level village idiot.
AndyG55 is right. Heck, I’m just a lowly Corporate Statistician and even I know what the science says (WUWT helps A LOT). I grew up during the nuclear winter scares of the 1970s. You didn’t fool us then…
Crackers345. Do you understand the difference between Solar Luminosity and the Solar Magnetism ? you don’t seem to.
The variability in solar luminosity is well below 1%. Your post points that out. We all agree.
The variability in Solar magnetic activity is MUCH larger. This is what the sunspot data shows.
Do you not know the difference ?
As to why the Solar magnetic activity matters, see the excellent observational work of Svensmark with Forbush Decreases and the theoretical work of Shaviv.
But even if it was not this effect (an Alternative Hypothesis to the IPCC AGW Hypothesis) then we would still have to reject the empirically falsified IPCC model and revert to the Null Hypothesis instead.
It appears it is you who doesn’t understand the science.
Moa commented – “The variability in Solar magnetic activity is MUCH larger. This is what the sunspot data shows.”
solar magnetism or
solar anything can’t create
more energy in the earth’s
climate system
than is delivered (TSI).
no matter how you count it, it
all comes down to conservation
of energy.
“We should reach that level — about 560 ppm of CO2 — in the latter half of this century.”
I would certainly qualify that with the conditional “if things continue as before.”
Personally,I don’t think CO2 emissions will be anywhere near what they are today even 20 years from now.
“I don’t think CO2 emissions will be anywhere near what they are today even 20 years from now.” Why not? What makes you think natural emissions aren’t driving the level?
Because natural sinks are larger than natural emissions, the natural (emissions minus sinks) net flow is negative and not driving. Simple as that.
Simplistic as that. And, wrong.
Hugs, if the sinks and sources depend on the current atmospheric concentrations, then the current rates don’t necessarily reflect what the rates would have been in a zero human emission scenario. We cannot say what the “natural” concentration of CO2 would be in our absence, because we don’t understand the processes to that level of precision.
Hugs, since nature is observed removing half the mass of aco2, then there is no reason why nature couldn’t be removing closer to to 100% of the mass of aco2, natural sources making up the difference. Thus the rise could be natural even though nature is a net sink for carbon…
Bart, always nice to “see” you. The ‘psuedo mass balance argument’ is such a pathetic shame. (it’s a dirty job, but somebody has to do it)…
Hi, Fonz. It always amazes me that people who think in such simple terms are nevertheless so confident in their judgments. In science, if you think it’s simple to the point of being self-evident, you probably don’t understand the problem.
B: why wrong?
crackers345: Because in a dynamic feedback system, one cannot attribute an observed change to a particular input merely on the basis that the sum total of the input is greater than the observed change.
If you eat a load of sweets and gain a bit of weight, it is not because the sum total of all the water you have drunk over your lifetime is greater than your weight gain.
If a lake level rises due to a dam being constructed, it is not because the sum total of micturition from the town upstream since its founding is greater than the level of the rise.
These would obviously be very stupid conclusions. Yet, that is basically what the pseudo-mass balance argument boils down to.
@bartemis
You cannot dismiss a simple explanation based on the possibility of a more complicated one.
So you cannot dismiss the rise is due to the “sum total of micturition from the town upstream”, on account of a dam being constructed downstream, unless you actually SHOW the dam.
Besides, the “pseudo mass balance argument”, as you call it, is NOT based on the sum total, it is based on yearly flux.
The fact is, no natural process would had extracted from the deep ground (as opposed to peat or forest fires) and burn so much fossil fuel as human do, if human didn’t. So no natural process would had produced the very same CO2 anyway if human didn’t (as opposed to bovine farts; wild animal fart, too, reducing meat consumption change just the farting from domestic to wild, for zero effect).
So, obviously, humans DO emit CO2 that wouldn’t be input without them.
The fact is, no process can distinguish this extra CO2 from all other CO2, meaning no process is specifically removing fossil fuel CO2 (as opposed to the town micturition of your example, which could be pumped from the river beforehand, so that any rise in micturition would be cancelled by pumping — this would be the case for, say, CO2 from food, all of it coming from CO2 ate by crops beforehand). Meaning sinks are not a direct function of this human input.
The fact is, yearly human fossil fuel emission of CO2 currently exceed the yearly increase in the atmosphere. Meaning, without our burning fuel, the quantity on CO2 in atmosphere would drop (and that would be BAD for all living being depending on it, that is, pretty much all of them).
It is that simple. Period.
“You cannot dismiss a simple explanation based on the possibility of a more complicated one.”
It’s not just a possibility. It is a fact, as is attested by the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric concentration is obviously induced by temperature. This relationship accounts essentially for the entire observed increase. Human inputs are superfluous.
“The fact is, no natural process would had extracted from the deep ground (as opposed to peat or forest fires) and burn so much fossil fuel as human do, if human didn’t.”
Sources of CO2 inflows are not confined to combustion. Human inputs are a small fraction of those from natural sources.
“Meaning sinks are not a direct function of this human input.”
Sinks react dynamically to the amount extant. As a result, they take out human inputs in the same proportion as their contribution to the natural flows. And, the amount that remains is distributed proportionally as well. Our proportion, as noted above, is small.
“Meaning, without our burning fuel, the quantity on CO2 in atmosphere would drop…”
It does not follow. We are peeing into a lake established by a mighty river. Tiny variations in that river flow easily overwhelm our best efforts.
“It is that simple.”
It isn’t.
“It’s not just a possibility. It is a fact, as is attested by the fact that the rate of change of atmospheric concentration is obviously induced by temperature. This relationship accounts essentially for the entire observed increase. ”
“essentially” or “entire”? make up your mind.
“Human inputs are superfluous.”
So you claim that without them, the very same increased of pCO2 would had occured. Meaning, somehow, either the source would had but higher or the sinks lower. Which could be true only if somehow human CO2 directly commanded natural sinks and sources, so as to cancel each other out. Do you really believe that? What’s make you have such a belief?
“Human inputs are a small fraction of those from natural sources.”
Small indeed, but they are not a “fraction”, somehow related to natural sources, they are something added.
“Sinks react dynamically to the amount extant. As a result, they take out human inputs in the same proportion as their contribution to the natural flows. And, the amount that remains is distributed proportionally as well. Our proportion, as noted above, is small.”
Which directly contradict your previous statement. our small proportion translate in a small proportion in the stimulation of sinks/inhibition of source. So then again, make up your mind. Are human input superfluous (in command of natural flux), or are small as to don’t impact those flux, meaning they simply add to them?
“We are peeing into a lake established by a mighty river”.
our peeing is high enough to be measured.
“Tiny variations in that river flow easily overwhelm our best efforts.”
They do, as evidenced by seasonally up and down. However, this doesn’t mean our “best effort” account for nothing.
” “It is that simple.” It isn’t. ”
Well, prove it, or stick to Occam’s razor.
Yeah. They are larger due to China and India, possibly also Nigeria. But the atmospheric fraction and growth of ppm annually will be smaller. That’s my bet.
I really hope India and Africa get out of energy poverty.
india is emitting about 45% the CO2 that
the US is. an American emits about
80% more than a chinese.
@crackers345
why are you carriage returning every 5 words?
Why don’t you tell us how much more Al Gore and other COP attendants emit more than an American?
Why are you shaming lay American people, but not the high priests of your church?
Higher or lower. I will guess, and hope for higher, because that would mean prosperity and health for now under developed lands.
some countries in Africa are
already
choking on
smog.
they need energy. they
need it from the cleanest
source possible, just like
we all do.
in any case, we’re rich
enough to pay for clean
energy, even if they aren’t.
Your word are “countries”, “we”, “they”… you cannot think outside abstract collection, do you?
I would make so much more sense if you only used “I”.
When will be the day when you write “in any case, I AM rich enough to pay for clean energy, so I DO IT” ?
Never. There is no such thing as “clean energy”. Hydro drowns huge surface. Bird choppers are just that. Solar panels are dirty electronics, etc. Maybe only nuclear qualify as clean, but many people object.
“some countries in Africa are
already
choking on
smog.”
Its not coming from modern coal fired power stations though, is it.
Smog was cure in western countries by the advent of modern, out-of-urban-area coal fired power.
Yet this is what the green anti-CO2, anti-human agenda would deny the developing world.
It really is an evil agenda. And those that support the agenda are the lowest scum of the Earth.
Thank goodness for China, helping fund some 1600 new coal fired power stations around the world.
The World Bank and its cronies are utterly contemptible in that respect.
“I don’t think CO2 emissions will be anywhere near what they are today even 20 years from now.”
1600 new coal fired power stations say otherwise.
And once people realise that they have been CONNED by this anti-CO2 scám, even more will be built, protecting the highly beneficial atmospheric CO2 levels we currently have..
maybe even boosting them to 600 or more ppm and Mother Nature will LUV it…
.. and give back in abundance. 🙂
True. note that every bit of fossil carbon used to be in the atmosphere. We are just putting it back where it belongs to the benefit of all living things.
“It’s crackers to slip a rozzer the dropsy in snide.”
Sounds like your data is missing a few updjustments
I am truly sorry to have to report that according to my results there is no man made warming.
Well, the urban heat island effect is pretty well established.
Well … there the deniers go again … using direct observation and empirical data to DENY what a consortium of scientists. Top people. Top. Really Top … people … with computers … nay, SUPER computers have PROVEN (on paper) (and charts) … that we are ALL gonna dieeeeeeeee!!!!! Soon. Really, really soon. We’re all gonna die … really soon.
Therefore, according to billionaire Tom Steyer … we must act NOW. Urgently. Immediately. No time to waste. We must impeach Trump NOW! Because Trump (and his slack-jawed, racist, denier-followers) are systematically UNdoing everything that Tom Steyer has PAID-for … his whole life. All the Steyer-sponsored Studies, policies, investments, and acts of human salvation are swirling the drain … because evil dead white men invented a thing called the Electoral College. What was once HER Blue Firewall … spontaneously combusted HER into flames (a conflagration made worse, of course, by Global Warming). So we MUST act NOW! Impeach 45! Impeach 45! Impeach 45!
/dripping sarc. off.
“Therefore, according to billionaire Tom Steyer … we must act NOW. Urgently. Immediately. No time to waste. We must impeach Trump NOW! Because Trump (and his slack-jawed, racist, denier-followers) are systematically UNdoing everything that Tom Steyer has PAID-for … his whole life.”
I think that sums it up nicely.
I hope Steyer wastes a lot of his money trying to get Trump impeached.
Steyer the Liar. Everything he accuses Trump of is a distortion of the truth. Steyer is just like all the other Leftists: The truth is not in him.
Trump’s base is rock-solid. Trump’s base is not fooled by the lies of the MSM or billionaires like Steyer. In Trump we Trust.
But in fact there was a doubling of dubious global warming what-if publications for promotion and tenure on top of that minimal CO2 effect. The rate of doubling now extends to non climate science fields to keep the acceleration rate in place at the margin. It’s the inflation theory of the publication mill universe.
I take modern measurement methods and technology over those of the 16th century any day of the week.
Great work, Dr. Christy! So long, (C)AGW.
One day It wil be proven that the climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 = ZERO, which is my hypothesis.
“I take modern measurement methods and technology”
So UAH V6 TLT, before this latest adjustment, gave a lifetime trend of 0.13°C/decade. UAH V5.6 TLT, still being produced, says 0.16°C/decade. I guess V6, two years old now, is more “modern”.
Nice try, Nick. Glad i could make you dive in the mud to find some diversion. Much appreciated.
Lesson nr 1: never bring a thermometer to a satellite fight.
Lesson nr 2: never build a windmill next to a molten salt reactor.
You made me think about an episode from this guy. Have nice day! Thanks for the laugh.
As the climate warms, the characteristics of the underlying surface will change (ice cover, vegetation). Not sure what kind of non-linearity this may or may not introduce to the temperature trend (if any) but as they say, past performance is no guarantee of future results.
Does the recent “23 years” also include the recent El Nino?
A first order effect of increased greenhouse gas is to increase the L.W. radiation flux (“sky” radiation) on the earth’s surface.Since the oceans cover nearly 70% of the surface, perhaps the increase of ocean energy content or sea surface temperature are better indicators of the greenhouse gas effect than the TTCR (which involves complex secondary heat transfer processes).
Anthony: they are indeed.
Roger Pielke Sr has been preaching
for years
that ocean heat content is by far the
best measure of the warming effect of
man’s ghgs.
for example
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf
Please show us where OCH measurements were done before 2003.
What small amount of sea surface data there was, was heavily biased to the North Atlantic., thus heavily affected by the AMO.
FACT is there is very little coverage of the oceans before 2003,
That means that the so-called OCH is purely a fabrication based on modelled assumption.
Yeah, yeah, the heat is hiding in the oceans. We know.
Average temperature of all ocean water: 3.9 °C.
The ‘heat’ is ‘well hidden’. And what is even better hidden (in climate science) is the enormous cooling potential of the oceans. We just need a bit more wind (on the right places) to get that cooling potential to expression.
No, no, no … it’s hiding in the sediment at the bottom of the ocean. And Trump is about to release it all and slaughter mankind … because that’s what “Developers” do … slaughter everything. We must URGENTLY impeach Trump … NOW! No time to waste.
kenji, did you get bitten by a rabid AGW / anti-trump tick of some sort ? 😉
I think kenji is being sarcastic, Andy.
(andy get’s it as evidenced by his “winking” text smiley)…
Anthony Mills:
In 1954, Hoyt C. Hottel conducted an experiment to determine the total emissivity/absorptivity of carbon dioxide and water vapor11. From his experiments, he found that the carbon dioxide has a total emissivity of almost zero below a temperature of 33 °C (306 K) in combination with a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm. 17 year later, B. Leckner repeated Hottel’s experiment and corrected the graphs12 plotted by Hottel. However, the results of Hottel were verified and Leckner found the same extremely insignificant emissivity of the carbon dioxide below 33 °C (306 K) of temperature and 0.6096 atm cm of partial pressure. Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.
Please note the sky radiation of which you speak supposedly comes from an elevation which has a temperature below 33C. Ergo CO2 has no effect on the earth has it has no emissivity.
you can’t just consider CO2 alone, as it will thermalize with the rest of the atmosphere when it absorbs short wave radiation. If there is any gas present that radiates at that temperature, it will.
That doesn’t mean that the sensitivity to CO2 is as big as advertised, just that your above argument isn’t a silver bullet.
“Hottel’s and Leckner’s graphs show a total emissivity of the carbon dioxide of zero under those conditions.”
I don’t believe any of that. Your link is dead, but anyway leads to a crackpot site.
Count to 10 please note it says CO2 and water vapor not CO2 alone. This gent wrote books on combustion chambers. His graphs are in my heat transfer book. If CO2 does not emit as he shows then the 300 W coming from the sky is not from CO2.
Nick Stokes: You don’t believe any of it, but his charts for figuring heat transfer in combustion chambers are based on his experiments. As I said above his formation is taught in engineering heat transfer. So whether you believe or not is irrelevant. The experiment showed t and it was confirmed by someone else. And I fixed the link.
http://www.biocab.org/Overlapping_Absorption_Bands.pdf
” If CO2 does not emit as he shows”
But he doesn’t show. Where is your source? What paper? All you give are links to a crackpot site. What I don’t believe is that Hottel wrote any such thing.
A clue to the crackpottery is
” a partial pressure of the carbon dioxide of 0.6096 atm cm”
Wrong units. Partial pressure is in atmospheres. What Nasif Nahle is doing is reading from Hottel’s charts the emissivity of a layer 6mm thick at 1 atm. That is small. But the atmosphere is equivalent to a layer of several metres of CO2 at 1 atm. NN (a slayer) has no idea what he is doing.
Nick Stokes:
This is an emission chart for CO2 temperature vs emissivity vs partial pressure. This does differ from the one I have in my text book, which I tried to photo and place here, but the idea is the same.
Now you can quibble about which emissivity to work with but for low partial pressure, .0004 for CO2 at 1 atm, the emissivity is very low. Less than .01, close to .007, for temperatures between 300-400 K. The chart in my text book shows zero emissivity for temperatures below 143 C at any partial pressure below .02.
I do not know who NN is, but show his work is wrong rather than attack the person.
If you have a chart from Hottel showing something different please provide.
” for low partial pressure, .0004 for CO2 at 1 atm”
Same error as Nahle. Read the units. The curves are marked in bar cm, not bar. They are not for partial pressures. And gas does not itself have an emissisivity, or absorptivity. The absorption or emission depends on both concentration and path length, as in Beer’s law. So you can talk of the emissivity of a layer, or a product of partial pressure and length, and that is what they are tabulating. So to put it on the atmosphere scale, the .0004 bar would have to be multiplied by the effective thickness of the atmosphere (pressure/surface density), which is about 700,000 cm. It isn’t very meaningful; Hottel’s charts were meant for an engineering scale.
It is a strange fantasy that the whole scientific endeavour from Tyndall, through Arrhenius to now, can be overturned by just reading a standard engineering chart. The first thing to suspect is a misreading, as here.
“I do not know who NN is”
He is a “slayer”, sky dragοn etc. And apparently someone whose name puts your comment in moderation here, which is where my reply sits.
Nick Stokes;
You are correct as to multiping by a path length, but if emissivity is zero at a temperature and partial pressure then no matter the length the out come is zero.
I have asked you for your chart showing what emissivity is at various temperatures and partial pressures but you yet to do that.
I will continue to use the information from my heat transfer text book. The sensitivity to CO2 is almost zero or zero.
mkelly,
“I have asked you for your chart showing what emissivity is at various temperatures and partial pressures but you yet to do that.”
Your chart is fine,; others would be similar. You are just misreading it. If you multiply by the length, you get something like 280 atm cm. That means you are looking at a curve above the top of that range (top curve has 100 atm cm). The standard emissivity is far from zero; it is more than 0.2. That is an average over all frequencies.
You can’t get CO2 climate sensitivity from a heat transfer textbook. But this chart confirms the GHG property of CO2.
John Christy states clearly that ” there is no accepted tool or technique to confidently estimate how much of the warming in the last 38 years might be due to natural causes”
That is a clear statement .
In plain language a human finger print cannot be identified from natural causes.
This was the finding of the scientists who contributed to the IPCC AR4 report and Ben Santer a lead author wrote his report to contradict that finding and said that man made emissions had been identified as a driver of the climate and they would lead to dangerous warming .
The politicians lapped this up and as it had been published by the UNIPCC it was beyond question .
When we question the global warming dogma we are labelled as deniers yet many lies have been perpetrated for the global warming cause .
The hype that the scare mongers generate in every news outlet is based on absolute unfounded conjecture .
We need far more honest scientists like John Christy to get out of this stinking swamp of deceit
I couldn’t agree more.
The good news is, many people that used to believe the CO2-mythe are starting to realize that it is all al load of bull. Times are changing for the better. Keep your spirits high, victory is near!
In what alternate universe is this true? Victory is farther away than ever. The move to EVs is gaining huge momentum. The Fortune 1000 is moving to RE. If utilities want to stay with fossil fuels, they can, but they won’t have many customers. Wind is not cheaper than any fossil fuels, and Telsa and Vestas just announced a partnership to bundle storage with wind turbines.
what natural causes?
seriously….
You really are BLINKERED and EMPTY, aren’t you crackpot.
You wouldn’t see the main natural cause from within your inner city ghetto basement, would you.
crackers, do you know what an ad ignoratium argument is? My favorite example of that fallacy was Lord Kelvin’s “proof” that the sun was less than a few million years old, as he knew of no other source of energy than gravitation.
tom halla: so again, _what_
natural factors are causing
warming?
Nice pretense of being thick as a brick, crackers. Failure to identify what other natural factor is associated with climate is no proof that CO2 controls climate.
andyg, your inability to reply without insults
are why i no longer respond to you.
ad homs have no place here or
anywhere
Why do you ALWAYS argue from the point of ZERO KNOWLEDGE, crackpot ?
Guessing because its all you have.
Your inability to make a serious relevant comment …..
or produce one single scrap of anything to do with science…..is noted.
and where is the insult.. just as everyone sees it.
Do you DENY that you are BLINKERED and NAIVE?
@crackers
what natural causes for your thinking ?
If you know, I hail you as next year Nobel Prize.
If you don’t, this leaves you three options
1) you actually don’t think
2) your thinking comes from your soul, as taught by religion,
3) your “argumentum ad ignoratium” is crap, and not knowing anything about natural causes is no proof they do not exist, no proof it’s all human doing.
Your choice ? 1,2 or 3?
I bet your choice will be to just decline to answer, as a cracker you are.
paqyfelyc commented – ”
@crackers
what natural causes for your thinking ?
If you know, I hail you as next year Nobel Prize.”
instead of ever
more insults, why
don’t you tell us
the natural factors
that are
responsible
for the warming
we’re seeing
I told you, changes to the distribution of water vapor as it follows the ocean cycles. It dies thus because cooling is regulated to near dew point because of the energy barrier of condensing water.
You can see the effect as net rad drops by 70% in the middle of the night.
I won my bet, cracker just declined to answer, as a cracker he is.
paqyfelyc commented – “I won my bet, cracker just declined to answer, as a cracker he is.”
i’m not interested
in playing your games.
i simply asked you what
natural causes are responsible
for the warming we’re seeing.
you declined to answer.
enough said.
You are still indulging in an ad ignorantium argument.
Scientists with government
grants, just in it for the money.
can’t be trusted.
right?
ps: cp RSS data
The position/hypothesis that there’s nothing to worry about, is not conducive to the upward spiraling grant money model, it seems to me, crackers . .
John – so you think that grant money influences
science.
did it influence this science that everyone here
is so willing to trust? if not, why not?
Obvious to see that crackpot has never had to hunt for grants.. dole money instead??
Because you are moronically naïve.. …
… if the grantee doesn’t cow-tow to the beliefs of those dispersing said grant….
…… the grantor does not give to the grantee.
Simple enough for you to wrap your feeble little mind around??
“John – so you think that grant money influences science.”
I consider such ambiguous language use a warning that I might be speaking to a con artist, crackers . . clean it up if you want a concise response.
“did it influence this science that everyone here is so willing to trust? if not, why not?”
I’m just me, not everyone here, OBVIOUSLY, slick . . and the phrase “the science” means the whole field to me . . so clean that stuff up, please . .
Crackers’ point flies right over AndyG’s head. You can hear the whooshing sound as it moves by.
What he was saying was that skeptics continually attack papers and data that support the AGW position, calling it biased and based on grant sucking up. Yet when ESSC, which gets grants, publishes a paper that questions the amount of warming, the science is rock solid and the grant link is not questioned. What’s the phrase that comes to mind? Selective outrage. Or perhaps hypocrisy.
crackpot make zero point posts empty nonsense..
Cwis falls in love with him.
And empty words from AndyG which ignore the point made, that an obvious point about his hypocrisy about grants and science which flew right over his head.
You really work hard to mis-characterize what other people have said.
PS: Coming from a guy who has declared that getting any money whatsoever from a fossil fuel company is immediately disqualifying, your comment is rich.
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” — Upton Sinclair
crackpot .. you were surrounded by mirrors when you said that, weren’t you.
Look inside yourself, and see your ignorant blankness staring back at you.
So you have no valid criticisms of the paper then?
Crackers
The moderator told me to be nice to you as you were supposedly adding something to the debate .
So here goes .The climate has warmed and cooled for millions of years on this rock traveling at a tremendous pace around the sun .Only 12000 years ago ,a blink of an eye in time the world warmed and the ice retreated from the continents in the northern hemisphere..This was an entirely natural event no human input .
The climate warmed up and humans started working their way towards civilization .It is a proven fact that the climate in the northern hemisphere has been warmer or at least as warm as it is at present three times since the Ice retreated .
Natural warming natural cooling .
What John Christy is stating here is that there is no tool or technique to establish whether the warming is man made or natural
The warmist scientists believe that it is mainly man made by C02 and other gasses .
This is a theory which has not been proven but it has been seized on by activist scientists and the political left .
Co2 may warm the world by .6 of a degree Celceus
My Computer froze Must be a sign of global cooling
.CO2 may warm the world by .6 degree Celsius as others have pointed out but that is not worth getting uptight about Cracker and Mcleod , How did the planet warm after the little ice age and the dark ages if it was not natural .You two are just useful idiots for the warmist Meme
Although far from definitive we can compare the results to the same approximate conditions the last time we had the AMO and PDO were in a similar state. If we look at 1910-1950 the Hadcrut4 trend is .12 C / decade. This would be comparable to the .13 C / decade with UAH 6. Also note the UAH 6 trend is probably overstated by the recent El Nino. Stopping in 2015 before the El Nino influences the trend lowers the recent warming to .11 C / decade.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1950/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1950/trend/plot/uah6/from/to:2015/plot/uah6/from/to:2015/trend
Based on this analysis it appears there is no difference in the trends which could be driven 100% by the PDO+AMO cycles. This would lead one to conclude that CO2 has a very low climate sensitivity.
Niether of those explanations is mutually exclusive of the other. Both could be at play.
The reason the models are running hot is because they are tuned to run hot. Given the wide range of tuning parameters available to GCM modellers, that statement (in bold) is hardly debatable. What is debatable is whether those parameters in a given model are realistic or imaginary to meet another goal of sensitivity to CO2.
Tuning includes parameters for precipitation, convection, and cloud microphysics. None of those parameters are firmly constrained. The modellers adjust those parameters until they “feel right” by achieving the confirmation bias in their sensitivity projections.
Convection (and resulting precipitation and cloud formation) is a major heat transport process to expel heat from the surface to the troposphere where it can more easily be expelled to space. If the Earth were a blue sky sphere with only transparent water vapor and not condensing water vapor, then the models would have a hope of being correct without much tuning. Of course the Earth is not a pure blue sky planet, so the models fail because the modellers tune them to meet expectation for a higher than observed climate sensitivity.
There is little evidence that the missing heat is being hidden in the deep oceans. But the measurements are grossly incomplete so there could be some. (Argo buoys only go down to 2000 meters).
It is likely therefore that the missing heat is actually being expelled by poorly modelled convective transport. (the first case)
l suspect one of the reasons for the lack of warming has by sheer irony been the warming of the Arctic during the winter months. One of the factors l believe for this warming in the Arctic has been a increase in warm air flowing into the Arctic due to the increase in looping of the jet stream. Because the only way the Arctic is going to warm up during the winter months is by taking from elsewhere across the globe. This increase in warm air moving up into the Arctic leads to a greater increase in heat loss.
Should have wrote “is by taking the heat from elsewhere across the globe”
The Arctic can also warm by changes in the ocean. The +AMO brings warmer water into the Arctic which melts more ice which then allows warmer ocean waters to vent heat into the atmosphere.
Yes l believe that the recent warming of the Arctic during the winter months combined with the lack of warming during the summer may suggest that this current warming is nearing it limits. Because such a situation leads to greater heat loss.
Richard,
That would explain a warming in the summer/fall, but when the Arctic is ice covered, the ocean below the ice is 0C ish while and is insulated from the air above. The ocean has almost no effect on Arctic air temperature once it is ice covered. All the currents do is delay the onset of ice cover by a few days to weeks and accelerate the spring melt.
When it is warm in the Arctic after the sun goes below the horizon, only the air mass can affect that.
OweninGA, maybe you missed the “melts more ice” part of my comment. This removes that insulation and allows the oceans to vent considerable heat into the air. It is the winter where the biggest difference is seen.
It’s the planet’s natural cooling system, not a stupid tipping point.
Exactly what I think. One of the ways the Earth cools down is by driving more heat into the winter Arctic. The warmists write alarming articles about how warm is the Arctic, and then watch the surface average temperature go down. I’ve tried to explain it to them repeatedly but they can’t get it.
Agree Javier. A warmer Arctic with melting sea ice probably is a cooling mechanism.
Eskimo’s stay (relatively) warm below a wall and roof of ice: the shelter we know as an igloo.
The covering sea ice at the North Pole normally prevents ventilation from the much warmer ocean below (above zero, + 2 C) to the much colder polar atmosphere in exactly the same way. However, the situation without sea ice results in ventilation of the energy hidden in huge quantities in the waters below.
The warmer Arctic also attracts low pressure areas. Low pressure areas suck up heat energy as far as from the mid-latitudes and bring it to the North Pole freezer where it cools. In the same time the warmer (but still cold) and more humid air brings moisture from the Arctic to the continents to the south (North America, Siberia) and causes an early snow pack in autumn, enhancing albedo and so cooling.
As long as not is proven that an Arctic summer warming by the sun in case of ‘no ice’ is more important than the extra upwards ventilation of heat by (more) ice free circumstances and by the cooling albedo effect of more early snow, a (more) ice free Arctic seems to be a cooling mechanism, Low pressure areas bring enormous quantities of energy to the upper layers of the atmosphere where the energy can be radiated into space, free of clouds. And the cloudy low pressure area’s below prevent extra insolation during summer time. No much warming, a lot of cooling. Al together, a strong cooling mechanism I suppose.
Climate Reanalyzer gives animated 10-day forecast maps. It is interesting to follow the path of the low pressure areas and to see the development in snow cover. The three links below are for ‘World’, ‘North America’ and ‘Asia’.
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.world-ced.snowd-mslp
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.na-lc.snowd-mslp
http://cci-reanalyzer.org/wx/fcst/#gfs.asia-lea.snowd-mslp
Well, this here is both good news and bad. The good news is that we do not have to worry about catastrauphic global warming caused by CO2. The bad news is that CO2 emmissions will not be sufficient to stave off the next glaciation.
If we can delay it by a century or so, that will give mankind that much more time to adapt.
We all know that the warmists will say that Christy undercooks the temps because of clouds etc. And it has to be said that Christy uses models to try to eliminate ‘factors’ that produce outliers. Satellites don’t measure temps, they measure radiance and then its all down to ‘models’. So one lot of models disagrees with another set.
Its nice Christy’s models seem to produce more sensible results, but they are still only models.
OT check this out – Mann (among others) attacks Crockford. https://polarbearscience.com/2017/11/29/polar-bears-refused-to-die-as-predicted-and-this-is-how-the-propheseers-respond/
TedL November 29, 2017 at 12:36 pm says;
OT check this out – Mann (among others) attacks Crockford.
“comments closed”; kinda says it all really,…..
Commens on Dr. Crockford’s site have been always closed, or so I believe. Or did I misunderstood what you said? If it is the case, apologies.
David,
All that says is that Dr. Crockford does not have an army of volunteers to help her moderate blog comments.
I’d really like to see these dates go back further….I know, satellites
…but temp increase is entirely too linear to be CO2
http://ete.cet.edu/gcc/style/images/uploads/GlobalSurfaceTemperature.png
Last four years of data missing.
Over 80% of that graph prior to 1978 is just made up. (no measures for most oceans, Antarctic, Arctic, Amazon, Africa, Russia, Northern Canada, Himalaya’s etc, etc,)
No honest scientist should ever present that graph without huge error bars and a warning about uncertainties.
If it is GISS, over 90% of it after 1978 is just made up for the same reason!
Mis-Application of the law of large numbers when the measurements aren’t of the same thing is criminal. The error bars are +/- 0.5 C as a minimum because the readings are +/-0.5 C and then there is distribution error, homogenization error, TOD error, siting error, error error, etc. Each error is additive in quadrature.
If I make 100 measures of the thickness of the same wing, I have a valid N=100 for error correction. If I measure 100 wings, not so much.
Owen,
It’s really a fundamental confusion between accuracy and precision. Accuracy can’t be improved by any post measurement process. Precision can be, but the amount of improvement depends a lot the the circumstances. In the case of the surface temperature record, I don’t think most of the uncertainty is due to noise, so averaging won’t help much.
OweninGA :
You’ve been reading some recent posts. You hit the nail on the head with each mathematical manipulation. The error bars would be wider than the graph! Using a graph like this is simply trying to get the ignorant to believe that the whiz kids can manipulate numbers to come up with exact projections.
Except GISS is not reality, its “adjusted” to try to fit the models.
Proof Is the 98% correlation between “adjustments” and CO2
FACT is that models have a STUPIDLY wide range.
And yet they still miss the side of the barn against REAL un-fabricated temperature data
PATHETIC. !!!
before feedbacks, we expect
a linearly increasing temperature.
forcing ~ log of co2, while trend
of co2 ~ exponential.
No WE don’t.
There is no empirical evidence for CO2 warming of the convective atmosphere.
It is a fantasy, erroneous assumption…… a mindless fairy-tale.
We expect ZERO warming from any range of atmospheric CO2 we are ever likely to reach.
Forbes – “The First Climate Model Turns 50, And Predicted Global Warming Almost Perfectly,”
March 15 2017
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#227ae5746614
How is it that a 50 year old climate model that predicted global warming almost perfectly also predicted the data adjustments that occurred after the coding of the model?
It would have had to do this as well to remain almost perfect, wouldn’t it?
gees crackers, pity they are not still using it. They might get within cooee of reality. !
The current lot is like firing a scatter gun at the side of a barn, and still missing. !
I would be nice if the microwave sounders could be calibrated to reflect water vapor content or maybe a multiple year GPS interferometry study. Having a solid, global measurement from space of water content would allow the value of the positive feedback mechanism to be analyzed.
Some good stuff here:
http://www.climate4you.com/GreenhouseGasses.htm
Thanks, Do you know why the dataset ends in 2009?
Look further down in the document. More data.
One has to wonder why there are not 1000s of new unmanned land based temperature stations placed in remote locations. Solar cells, Lion batteries and satellite internet make costs ridiculously low for the amount of valuable data that could be gained. Perhaps they are afraid that the new data will ruin a perfectly good agenda.
The US Climate Reference network shows a cooling trend (slight). Probably worried that such would replicate world wide.
Personally I would want to know that. It is easier to prepare for conditions you see coming from real data. Otherwise you could spend a billion dollars on desalination plants since it “just won’t rain anymore”!
nobody wants to pay for them.
they’re in very harsh environments, where
maintenance is difficult and expensive.
Not important enough..
is that what you are telling us?
But spending TRILLIONS on a baseless anti-science conjecture, is important ?
DATA FIRST…… see what is really happening.
Certainly it is NOT MUCH
Apart from a highly beneficial, and totally natural 1ºC or so warming out of the COLDEST period in 10,000 years……….
In what way has the “climate” changed?
A other reason l suspect for the lack of warming has been lack of change in the snow cover extent during the last 30 years. This has simply tracked sidewards over this time rather then decreased as am sure the models would have expected with any global warming.
So the question is, what do we do now?
1. Say the paper was not published in the right journals and dismiss it?
2. Say the writers are on big oil pay?
3. Go right to the lawsuit?
Or… perhaps we can discuss the science behind this study… maybe?
The 2018 United Nations climate summit COP24 will be held in Katowice, the heart of Poland’s coal-mining industry.
What a party that will be, with a declaration that we no longer face extinction due to global warming. All those Paris delegates will be able to pack up and go home and do some real work, the junkets are over. I think suitable work for them would be to work in the mining industry, producing real wealth for poor nations, not simply handouts.
Robber,
The mining industry has tight standards for recruiting new employees. Geoff.
From No Tricks Zone:
CO2 Warming Grossly Exaggerated… 60 Published Papers Find Extremely Low Climate Sensitivity To Doubled CO2!
http://notrickszone.com/2016/06/13/co2-warming-grossly-exaggerated-50-published-papers-find-extremely-low-climate-sensitivity-to-doubled-co2/#sthash.QlikUIzX.dpbs
and,
Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero
http://notrickszone.com/2017/10/16/recent-co2-climate-sensitivity-estimates-continue-trending-towards-zero/#sthash.7XMO8Gby.dpbs
So, having just read the paper, I can say that I truly enjoy reading a well written paper. Although I don’t personally have the knowledge base necessary to fully judge it, the conclusions are narrow, and potential alternatives are presented. This is a credit to the authors.
I do have one lingering question, though, which was identified by the paper. In section 3.c, while discussing potential reasons for the discrepancy between models and observations, the paper offers the following explanation (as one of two):
I feel kind of embarrassed to admit this, but (and this is something that’s bugged for a while now) I just can’t understand why the higher elevation of the effective radiation level has a net reduction to the amount radiated. I presume the logic is that since the temperature drops as elevation increases (in the troposphere), transferring the effective radiation level to a higher elevation will result in radiating at a lower temperature…which means less radiation, which ultimately leads to higher temperatures. If I’ve understood this correctly, then I can’t help but feel this is simply a clever way to claim that as more heat is added to the atmosphere, less heat can radiate away…
I understand, obviously, that the lower temperature at elevation means a lower intensity to the radiation flux…but isn’t radiative flux also directly proportional to the magnitude of the area? And isn’t there geometrically more area to radiate from with each incremental increase in elevation? So, it evens out, right?
And furthermore, isn’t non-physical to assert that more heat is going to cause the radiative level be at a lower temp? This seems like it’s predicated on an assumption that temperature of the atmosphere is only dependent on distance from the earth’s surface (height), which is then correlated to pressure. But, since volume is not constrained, pressure at any altitude can vary. So…yes, while, all other things being equal, gas at a higher elevation has a lower temperature, adding more heat means all other things aren’t equal.
Sorry, what am I missing here? I know I must have some error in my thought process, I just don’t know what it is. I’m open to any offers of clarification on this…
rip
The increase in height results in a tiny increase in the effective area, compared to the effect of the lower temperature. The effect is well explained in this link https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming.html
The final altitude of emission is determined by the decrease in density with altitude of the emitting gas. At low densities there are not enough molecules to emit significant amounts of radiation. As you add more CO2, the altitude at which CO2 density becomes too thin to radiate increases, and the temperature of radiation becomes lower.
Thanks, all, for the responses.
eadler2, reading through your link is instructive. Thank you. I’ll admit that most, if not all, of the information presented is quite familiar to me. So, from that perspective, nothing new. Interestingly, that site itself says something that I interpret to be exactly my point. To wit:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/multilayermodel.html
This seems to confirm my understanding that you can’t force CO2 to emit at a colder temperature by simply driving it to higher altitude. (Unless the theory is proposing that the sum of energy is fixed, and the more CO2 added drops the average of each molecule.)
I don’t know. I guess I have more studying to do and more grappling with where my error in understanding is.
Thanks again.
rip
Ripshin:
“but isn’t radiative flux also directly proportional to the magnitude of the area? And isn’t there geometrically more area to radiate from with each incremental increase in elevation? So, it evens out, right?”
A quick calc makes the increase in area from the Earth’s surface to a sphere at 8km above about 0.8%.
At ~8Km (corresponding to ~255K) then that “sphere” is radiating at 240 W/m2
Whereas at the surface (288k) it’s radiating at 390 W/m2
0.8% of the difference+diff = 150×0.8 = 12 W/m2
So decrease in radiative emittance = 150-12 = 138 W/m2
Not even sure the increase radiating area applies as it is primarily the CO2 molecules that are radiating there, and they will be less than at the surface.
“This seems to confirm my understanding that you can’t force CO2 to emit at a colder temperature by simply driving it to higher altitude. (Unless the theory is proposing that the sum of energy is fixed, and the more CO2 added drops the average of each molecule.)”
The Co2 molecule when taken to altitude (say 8 km), naturally cools by the LR. To an average of -18C. It therefore is bound to radiate at that temp and thus do so at a rate of 150 W/m2 (maybe minus 12 of that) than if at the surface.
Thanks Toneb. I had actually just gotten around to actually calculating and came up with 0.38% increase for 12km (looks like 0.25% by my calc for your 8km altitude). I guess this pretty much puts this to bed for me. I was neglecting to take into account the relative size of the earth’s radius. Just focusing on how big the atmosphere was relative to my own diminutive self. (Diminutive relative to the size of the earth, that is. And that delta has been significantly reduced following Thanksgiving!!!)
Should have done this originally instead of wasting people’s time with a dumb question. Thanks for your patience.
Also, regarding the second point, I completely understand that CO2 at elevation will radiate at a cooler temperature than at the surface. And, if that’s all that’s being proposed, then I withdraw my question since I clearly misunderstood. I had thought it was being suggested that adding CO2 to the atmosphere would drive the effective radiating level of CO2 from wherever it was to start (some X km’s above the surface) to a higher elevation (x + y km’s above the surface), and that this increase would necessarily reduce the effective radiating temperature from the 230ish Ks it started at, to something below this. That was what I was having trouble understanding.
rip
“A quick calc makes the increase in area from the Earth’s surface to a sphere at 8km above about 0.8%.”
quick indeed. And wrong (anyone can be sometime wrong, but when it comes from Toneb it is more than sometime… )
from R= to R’= R+e, e<<R, the relative increase in surface is ~2e/R = ~16/6400 = 0.0025 = 0.25 %
Radiation is related to temperature to the fourth power while surface area is to change in altitude squared. Lapse rate would have to be pretty small to make that work. (to be exact
greater
Owen,
I understand this point. I guess my only thought here to clarify is that, yes, radiation emits to the 4th power…but it’s related to the 4th power of a really small number…but, as you point out, this is directly calculable. I guess I’ll have to make the effort to run through the actual math myself. (Apparently I’m too stubborn to just take your word for it…I have to see for myself that the math works. 🙂 )
rip
I find it helps to think of these things in terms of total energy, not temperature. The key here is to realize that the atmosphere is less dense the further you travel from the surface of the planet.
“Should have done this originally instead of wasting people’s time with a dumb question. Thanks for your patience.”
You are NOT wasting people’s time, crackers and Co are. And Toneb, seeing his answer, just doesn’t understand what he is trying to explain, and cannot even do basic calculation right, so HE is wasting your time.
I advise you duckduckgo “optical depth”. The best way to understand GHE is as follows, from space point of view:
* Earth is more or less at radiative equilibrium. It radiates as if at ~ -18°C / 255K
* radiation, on average, looks like it comes from somewhere in atmosphere (even though it really doesn’t, some of it comes from the ground and any altitude)
* lapse rate command Earth surface temperature, so the higher the apparent emission altitude, the higher surface temperature
* GHG make atmosphere more opaque, increasing optical depth, rising the emission apparent altitude and thus surface temperature [All the controversy is about this point only: to what extent CO2 really increase optical depth? a lot? very little? not at all? some say it even reduce optical depth, which could indeed happen if radiation from low altitude CO2 substitutes itself to higher altitude emitters’]
This answer you question,
and also explains Mars and Venus GHG. Venus is much hotter at surface, despite with close to ~2 less incoming radiation at surface level and only marginally more efficient GHG (Earth’s are already >90% efficient, Venus’ are more but still <100%, so Venus only enjoy a less than 10% increase in pure greenhouse effect). But its emission apparently (seen from space) comes from much higher altitude in its much thicker atmosphere. With the very same GHG, but a thinner atmosphere, Venus would be colder. Like Mars is. Mars has as much CO2 as Earth, but so thin atmosphere the lapse rate has very small effect.
Thanks paqyfelyc. I’ll take your suggestion on searching optical depth. It definitely sounds like approaching it from this perspective could resolve some nuances that I’m having trouble understanding. Appreciate the time and patience!
rip
Did the authors use TLT data sets other than their own, UAH? This is significant, since exactly the same data used by UAH is also interpreted by RSS (Remote Sensing Systems). RSS finds a much stronger warming trend over the period mentioned. RSS is also in better agreement with the surface data trends over the same period than UAH.
DWR, according to the article they used v5.6 for the study and uah v5.6 is fairly close to rss v4. (see footnote 1)…
and uah made big changes when
they went to v6. odd they wouldn’t
use that version.
(according to the footnote the switch to v6 was made when the paper was in peer review)…
“RSS is also in better agreement with the surface data trends “
Of course it is.. That was the whole aim of the “adjustments”.. DOH !!!
If I read Zeke’s comment about RSS 4.0 when it was announced, they now replace some of the data with either model results or surface data. In either case it is no longer pure satellite data. UAH is the only satellite data set.
uah’s data is itself a model.
the satellites they use are not measuring
temperatures.
they are measuring microwave insensities
and using a model to convert them to
temperatures. after adjusting for all
kinds of biases….
Again crackpot shows his ignorance of suppository models ie climate models, based on imaginary assumptions….
and engineering models based on known physics of satellite motion.
You really do not have the slightest clue about anything, do you crackpot. !
All measurements of temperatures are based on models, crackers. Are you telling me you didn’t know that? LOL.
I think they forgot about all the heat that hides deep in the ocean. Trenberth’s revenge!
“Using satellite instruments to collect temperature data from the bulk atmosphere is a better and more robust tool for detecting the addition of energy related to extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, Christy said.”
Inconvenient fact – this article says the warming rate based on V6 was 0.09°C/decade. But UAH V5.6 TLT, which they still publish, says it was 0.16°C/decade. Not so robust. RSS TLT V4 says 0.15.
Nick,
The .09C/decade value was based on a data set where natural events such as volcanoes and ENSO warming/cooling have been removed. I’m guessing you didn’t really read the paper.
Yeah, Paul, substitute .13C for Nick’s .09C…
what’s the trend
with rss’s data?
why is everyone
here ignoring
them?
I think they are just ignoring trolls with the I type like a “special needs patient” meme …[pruned]
(it’s not inconceivable that he is a special needs patient)…
Trends in RSS..
1980-1997
2001 – 2015.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/RSSv4-vs-UAH-MT-original-series.jpg
That’s reasonably close to what I get from the surface stations, it just starts at a climatic low, so of course it’s gone up, just from shifting waters.
That doesn’t mean it’s linear, it’s just the rising edge of a cycle!
“it’s just the rising edge of a cycle!”
Caused by what?
“Caused by what?”
The same things that caused all variations before, when any human influence is ruled out.
It is up to CAGW crowd to calculate them right (or at least have some reasonable estimate), then subtract them from actual temperature, and the difference will be human influence. Not the other way round.
Nobody can calculate those natural variation? Indeed. So the whole CAGW meme is unscientific, as of now. Just hope it will turn scientific some day, as alchemy turned into chemistry.
paqyfelyc commented – “The same things that caused all variations before, when any human influence is ruled out.”
what are they?
which of them explains
today’s GW?
“It is up to CAGW crowd to calculate them right (or at least have some reasonable estimate), then subtract them from actual temperature, and the difference will be human influence.”
this has been done many many times.
it makes no difference to
people like
you
http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/
“what are they” ? it is up to “climate scientist” to calculate them.
And, as i said, they are unable to do that. For very good mathematical reasons, exposed by Lorenz himself decades ago, that no one challenged .
this has been exposed many many times.
it makes no difference to
people like
you
people that dare use Bloomberg as a scientific source, and afterward talk about “big money” behind WUWT, and don’t even see the irony… Seriously…
Yes, Nick, that looks to be a problem. (christy’s claim brings to mind the ol’ saying, “very important… if true!” ) v5.6 clearly had a couple problems. v6, in the same way, may have problems which have yet to come to light. Hopefully we’ll have data soon which has all the data sets going in one direction or another. Clear warming or clear cooling. (at that point maybe we’ll actually learn something)…
“Clear warming or clear cooling.”
huh? there is no doubt of the
warming. what are you
talking about?
(aka “the pause”)…
In both RSS and UAH, a zero trend has existed for 33 of the 39 years.
The ONLY warming has come from EL Nino events, particularly the step change at the 1998-2001 El Nino
Here the two graphs above are combined, minus the El Nino spike
The step change is clearly evident.
crackers resorts to comedy animations..
PATHETIC. !!
Imagine the squawking if that graph actually trended down.
tony – the error would be the same no matter what
the sign of the trend
two EMPTY clowns.
playing pitty-pap with each other.
Cute.. in a sickening kind of way.
Still nailed to your perch I see, Mc Cold.
RSS (Mears): the troposphere has not warmed quite as fast as most climate models predict
http://www.remss.com/research/climate/
And our own Ben Santer proved that the observed warming is natural from at least 1993:
John Bills commented – “And our own Ben Santer proved that the observed warming is natural from at least 1993:”
rubbish. pure rubbish.
your last graph shows
just the opposite, about
0.3 C warming
from 2000-2015. and more
since ’15.
Sorry crackers, the graph does not show any warming. You are looking at a line which represents models. There is no trend line, however, it is easy to see the trend is not distinguishable from zero.
Initial radiametric calculations came up with a climate sensivity of CO2, not including any feedbacks of 1.2 degrees C. One researcher has pointed out that these initial calculations fail to take into consideration that the doubling of CO2 in the troposphere will cause a slight but very significant decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere effectively decreasing the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20 yielding a climate sensivity of CO2, not including feedbacks, of less than .06 degrees C.
The IPCC likes to use numbers like 3 for the amplification of CO2 based warming caused by H2O. The theory is that CO2 warming will cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere which will cause even more warming because H2O is an even stonger absorber of IR than is CO2. However what has been ignored is the fact that H2O is a major coolant in the Earth’s atmoshere transfering heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via that heat of vaporiation. According to some energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both convection and LWIR absorption band radiation combined. The net cooling effects of H2O are exemplified by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly lower than the dry lapse rate. So instead of applying an amplification of 3 a better amplification factor to apply would be 1/3, yielding a climate sensifity of CO2 of less than .02 degrees C which is a rather trivial amount.
Include the observation that a radiametric greenhosue effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system will drive one to the concludion that the climate sensivitry of CO2 is effectively zero. The radiametric greenhouse efect is science fiction so hence the AGW conjecture is science fiction.
Good paper. I have two issues though.
1. They have not included the sun’s activity. The magnitude of the effect of the sun’s activity, as characterized by the sun spot number) is similar to that of ENSO, as they have characterized it.
2. The effect of ENSO is not linear. In this paper, they have correlated the temperatures to the immediate effect of ENSO. However there is a secondary, long term, effect that is even more important. This effect can be seen by putting the ENSO numbers through an exponentially weighted moving average (EWMA) filter.
EWMA (ENSO) at (time T) = EWMA (ENSO) at (time T-1) * (1-λ) + ENSO at (time T)*λ
For λ of about 0.01 the correlation is highly significant. In fact if this would be done, it would likely account for the entire increase in temperature over the time period.
Note that ENSO was very much below normal in the 1950s through the 1970s, and has been above normal since.
“The magnitude of the effect of the sun’s activity, as characterized by the sun spot number) is similar to that of ENSO, as they have characterized it.”
but there hasn’t
been an increase in
sunspot number for
50+ years.
in fact, there’s been a
decreasing trend:
http://sunspotwatch.com/share/201407_wolfmms.jpg
The last 50 years has had the highest average sunspot count for a long time.
So much so that real solar scientists called it a Grand Solar Maximum.
You seem to be trying to wear people down with your stupidity and ignorance.
Even a blind monkey could see that surge in sunspots during the latter half of last century
But you choose to remain blinkered and naïve.
mkelly; Many thanks for your reply to my comment. I will certainly look at further into the work of Hottel and Leckner.I have used data from Staley, D.O., and Jaluria,G.M., “Effective atmospheric emissivity under clear skies” J.Applied Meteorology,v.11,349-356,March 1972.” to estimate an increase in sky emissivity of 0.006 (0.7%) for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from 300 to 400 ppm, and corresponding increase in back radiation of about 2W/m^2–in line with measurements of ocean energy content increase.
To quote my hero, Prof. Richard Lindzen:
“We see that all the models are characterized by positive feedback factors (associated with amplifying the effect of changes in CO2), while the satellite data implies that the feedback should be negative. Similar results are being obtained by Roy Spencer.
This is not simply a technical matter. Without positive feedbacks, doubling CO2 only produces 1C warming. Only with positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds does one get the large warmings that are associated with alarm. What the satellite data seems to show is that these positive feedbacks are model artifacts.”
“Discussion of other progress in science can also be discussed if there is any interest. Our recent work on the early faint sun may prove particularly important. 2.5 billion years ago, when the sun was 20% less bright (compared to the 2% change in the radiative budget associated with doubling CO2), evidence suggests that the oceans were unfrozen and the temperature was not very different from today’s. No greenhouse gas solution has worked, but a negative cloud feedback does.
You now have some idea of why I think that there won’t be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.”
Testimony: House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
November 17, 2010
Never forget, AGW is all about positive feedbacks. Fight them there! Because that is its Achilles’ heel.
“You now have some idea of why I think that there won’t be much warming due to CO2, and without significant global warming, it is impossible to tie catastrophes to such warming. Even with significant warming it would have been extremely difficult to make this connection.”
Keep this in mind the next time you hear some dope claim that some weather event is caused by human-produced CO2.
why is Lindzen the last and
only word on climate science?
because you like what he says?
Why the empty post , crackpot.
present something if you have anything.
“The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations. Such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well. Climate is always changing.” Quote from Prof. Lindzen.
That’s why.
Prof. Lindzen is a true scientist. You are just an alarmist and a living example of the illiteracy and susceptibility that he mentions in this quote.
Any more questions?
why is Lindzen a
“true scientist” and
hundred of
thousands of other
scientists aren’t?
Because he knows the field extremely well and is a very succesfull scientist and professor.
“According to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the greenhouse forcing from man made greenhouse gases is already about 86% of what one expects from a doubling of CO2 (with about half coming from methane, nitrous oxide, freons and ozone), and alarming predictions depend on models for which the sensitivity to a doubling for CO2 is greater than 2C which implies that we should already have seen much more warming than we have seen thus far, even if all the warming we have seen so far were due to man.”
Still more questions from Soros?
It could argued the “The notion of a static, unchanging climate” is a bit of a straw man. Who thinks that?
Isn’t it universally accepted that the climate is a non-linear dynamical system? I think that was universally accepted back in 2009 when he penned that op-ed piece.
@tony mcleod:
Very brave of you to attack the opening line of a paper.
And for your information, we have been presented the notion that man is responsible for the 20th centruy warming, so an unchanging climate must have been the default position. Right?
Now try to debunk the second sentence:
“The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”
Guess you can’t.
universally accepted that the climate is a non-linear dynamical system
Then why do the child-minds like you, crackpot and the rest of your AGW trollups insist on putting monkey-like linear trends across obvious “event” changes that have nothing to do with human CO2.
Because its the ONLY way you can show there is any warming trend… that is why
Outside those El Nino “events’ (NON-LINEAR)…… there is NO WARMING
I’m very glad that you are finally starting to wake up to REALITY McClod.
Stay awake, stay of the mind-numbing addiction of klimate kool-aide…..
….. and don’t slip backward into the slime of the AGW agenda.
Scarface
“And for your information, we have been presented the notion that man is responsible for the 20th centruy warming, so an unchanging climate must have been the default position. Right?”
No, why? Who thinks that.
““Debunk…
The fact that the developed world went into hysterics over changes in global mean temperature anomaly of a few tenths of a degree will astound future generations.”
Guess you can’t.”
Debunk something with the word hysterics in it?
“The rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has not significantly accelerated over the past 23 years”
Hmm. In other words: the rate at which Earth’s atmosphere is warming has accelerated over the past 23 years. So bad news right?
[?? .mod]
Last 23 years.. just the two El Ninos.
No other warming.
Only a trend if you use either or both El Ninos..
which are NOTHING to do with human CO2 or human ANYTHING.
The “good news” is the acceleration is not great. The elephant in the room is that warming has accelerated.
Tony McLeod,appears determined to try fogging up the thread with an unsupported claim,a lie probably since Andy TWICE using charts shows ZERO warming outside of El-Nino events,
From the article you didn’t read:
“The unadjusted climate trend in the deep troposphere from January 1979 to June 2017 was +0.155 C (about 0.279° F) per decade.¹ After adjusting for the volcanoes and other less significant effects, including the Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation and the Pacific decadal oscillation, the trend drops to 0.096 C per decade — or about 0.364 C (0.66° F) total since December 1978.”
The IPCC report says a .30C per decade warming is projected based on emission scenarios. Yet the Satellite data shows only about .15C per decade warming since 1979.
You are as usual full of baloney.
the top 0.7 km of the
ocean shows a clear
acceleration in OHC.
Crackers comes along in a dumb defense of a Tony lie, by trying to shift it to ocean waters,with his unsubstantiated claim.
You like Tony, are here to make nebulous claims then flit away. You are boring me.
“the top 0.7 km of the
ocean shows a clear
acceleration in OHC.”
BS, based on gullibility…..as usual.!
Show us where ocean were measured before 2003.
There is absolutely NO WAY anything before 2003 could be calculated.. data is way too sparse for any sort of accuracy, especially to the TINY amounts they talk about.
Its based on modelled suppositories.
And the first bit of the ARGO data showed COOLING until Josh got his weedy little hands on it.
“The elephant in the room is that warming has accelerated.”
Again, a load of total BS.. based only on the recent El Nino.
Keep letting your ignorance shine through, McClod. !!
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/
“All international climate models suggest further cooling of the tropical Pacific is likely.
All models reach La Niña thresholds in December 2017”
And a big La Nina spike forming (28th Nov)
