Claim: ‘Less than 1% probability’ that Earth’s energy imbalance increase occurred naturally, say Princeton and GFDL scientists

Earth’s energy balance sheet is in the red, leading to higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.

Peer-Reviewed Publication

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY

Shiv Priyam Raghuraman
IMAGE: SHIV PRIYAM RAGHURAMAN, A GRADUATE STUDENT IN ATMOSPHERIC AND OCEANIC SCIENCES AT PRINCETON, REPORTS IN TODAY’S ISSUE OF NATURE COMMUNICATIONS THAT EARTH’S ‘ENERGY IMBALANCE’ IS GROWING, AND THERE IS LESS THAN 1% PROBABILITY THAT THIS TREND CAN BE EXPLAINED BY NATURAL VARIATIONS IN THE CLIMATE SYSTEM. PUT ANOTHER WAY, THERE’S A GREATER THAN 99% PROBABILITY THAT OUR PLANET’S RISING TEMPERATURES ARE CAUSED BY HUMAN ACTIVITY. view more CREDIT: MORGAN KELLY, HIGH MEADOWS ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTE

Sunlight in, reflected and emitted energy out. That’s the fundamental energy balance sheet for our planet. If Earth’s clouds, oceans, ice caps and land surfaces send as much energy back up to space as the sun shines down on us, then our planet maintains equilibrium.

But for decades, that system has been out of balance. Sunlight continues to pour in, and Earth isn’t releasing enough, either as reflected solar radiation or as emitted infrared radiation. The extra heat trapped around our globe — some 90% of which is stored in the ocean — adds energy to worldwide climate systems and manifests in many ways: higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.

While climate scientists have warned for a half-century that this was the inevitable result of adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, so-called climate deniers have continued to suggest that the observed changes might be a fluke — just natural variation.

“Until now, scientists have believed that because of the short observational record, we can’t deduce if the increase in the imbalance is due to humans or climatic ‘noise,’” said Shiv Priyam Raghuraman, a graduate student in atmospheric and oceanic sciences (AOS) at Princeton. “Our study shows that even with the given observational record, it is almost impossible to have such a large increase in the imbalance just by Earth doing its own oscillations and variations.”

He and his co-authors used satellite observations from 2001 to 2020 and found that Earth’s “energy imbalance” is growing. Raghuraman worked with David Paynter of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (GFDL), a NOAA-funded national laboratory located on Princeton’s Forrestal Campus, and V. “Ram” Ramaswamy, director of GFDL and a lecturer with the rank of professor in geosciences and AOS at Princeton University. Their paper appears today in Nature Communications.

“It is exceptionally unlikely — less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations in the climate system,” said Raghuraman.

So what has caused the growing energy imbalance?

“We always think, ‘Increasing greenhouse gases means trapping more infrared heat’ — the classic greenhouse effect becomes larger,” said Raghuraman. “This is correct, but the flip side is that the resulting warmer planet now also radiates more infrared heat away to space, so the greenhouse gas heating impact is cancelled. Instead, much of the imbalance increase comes from the fact that we are receiving the same amount of sunlight but reflecting back less, because increased greenhouse gases cause cloud cover changes, less aerosols in the air to reflect sunlight — that is, cleaner air over the U.S. and Europe — and sea-ice decreases.” (Bright white sea ice reflects much more sunlight than sea water, so as sea ice melts, Earth is becoming less reflective.)

In addition, the Princeton and GFDL researchers noted that oceans store 90% of this excess heat. Because of this close relationship between the growing energy imbalance and ocean heating, the Earth’s energy imbalance has important connections to marine health, sea-level rise and the warming of the global climate system. The researchers hope that tracking the historical trends in this energy imbalance and understanding its components will improve the models of future climate change that drive policymaking and mitigation efforts.

“The satellite record provides clear evidence of a human-influenced climate system,” they said. “Knowing that human activity is responsible for the acceleration of planetary heat uptake implies the need for significant policy and societal action to reduce anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions to curb further increases in Earth’s energy imbalance.”

###

Anthropogenic forcing and response yield observed positive trend in Earth’s energy imbalance,” by Shiv Priyam Raghuraman, David Paynter and V. Ramaswamy, appears in the current issue of Nature Communications (DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-24544-4). The research was supported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Future Investigators in NASA Earth and Space Science and Technology (award 80NSSC19K1372), the High Meadows Environmental Institute at Princeton University, and the Mary and Randall Hack ’69 Research Fund.


JOURNAL

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-021-24544-4

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Computational simulation/modeling

From EurekAlert!

1.6 28 votes
Article Rating
283 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
AlexBerlin
July 29, 2021 6:03 am

1% probability is not exactly what I’d call “extremely unlikely”, or is it?

MarkW
Reply to  AlexBerlin
July 29, 2021 8:10 am

The exact quote is

Less than 1% probability’ that Earth’s energy imbalance increase occurred naturally

They are claiming that there is a 99% probability that it is caused by man.
Of course the reasoning they use to come up with that 1%/99% calculation is a bit shakey.

Nor have they demonstrated that the tiny bit of warming that they have detected is bad, much less catastrophic.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 8:46 am

Exactly . He says …”Earth’s energy balance sheet is in the red “…
No. it’s in the green !
Ask the plants.

Paul S.
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 1:12 pm

But 97% of scientists agree

Philo
Reply to  Paul S.
July 29, 2021 1:39 pm

Only if you get self-selected scientists that agree with you already.

Greg
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2021 8:38 am

But look at his earlier claim:

“Our study shows that even with the given observational record, it is almost impossible to have such a large increase in the imbalance just by Earth doing its own oscillations and variations.”

Note the “just by”. That means they found it had to be a mix of anthro and natural change. But then the BIG BOLD LETTERS claim is:

“It is exceptionally unlikely — less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations in the climate system,” said Raghuraman.

Here he manages to miss out the word ALONE: less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations ALONE

That is called lying by omission.

Last edited 1 month ago by Greg
Ric Haldane
Reply to  AlexBerlin
July 29, 2021 9:54 am

I would guess that there is less than a 1% chance that this grad student got off his butt and walked a few hundred yards to talk to Will Happer over at the Physics Building. Princeton U. and AOS are big on their claims of diversity, diversity in science, not so much.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Ric Haldane
July 29, 2021 11:24 am

But, Happer is not his advisor. He has to please his advisor and committee.

Pamela Matlack-Klein
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 2:26 pm

This is pathetic. I would like to know who the peers are that reviewed this tripe.

Reply to  AlexBerlin
July 29, 2021 12:13 pm

What energy imbalance? Any measured ‘imbalance’ is 99% more likely to be a measurement error or some biased adjustment. Considering that each hemisphere exhibits over 100 W/m^2 of difference between maximum positive imbalance in its winter (emits more than it receives) and maximum negative imbalance in the summer. The size of any claimed ‘imbalance’ is significantly smaller than the uncertainty in the data used to approximate it.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  co2isnotevil
July 29, 2021 2:28 pm

Exactly.
It is all lies, all the time.
All the way down.

Philo
Reply to  AlexBerlin
July 29, 2021 2:06 pm

from the paper:”Using climate model simulations, we show that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1% probability) that this trend can be explained by internal variability
The 95% CI consists of uncertainty due to observational error, as well as uncertainty due to internal variability (latter quantified by standard error associated with linear fit.”
All the calculations are were done using the same models that have been used to produce the “projected temperatures” by the IPCCC.

The main problem is that what the climate models calculate on such large grid patterns it is difficult to evaluate the effects in real terms. The models are designed to prevent any runaway calculations.

AS a result, it is not surprising that they are in good agreement with each other and can produce a very small radiation imbalance. The question is: is this 1% real, or just a response to the inherent error in the climate models? With no measures of observational error and internal error that the actual equations generate in the models despite the damping used- it is quite likely internal errors are more than enough to give a <1% error.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Philo
July 29, 2021 2:33 pm

Is it real?
Let’s have a look at models vs reality in a picture, attached below.
As we can see, this question was settled years ago.
Since then, the lies have only continued to increase in ridiculousness, audacity, divergence from reality, and shrilly unhinged exaggeration.

Friends of Science.jpg
Dave Fair
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
July 29, 2021 3:20 pm

Need to update the graph.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 30, 2021 7:05 am

I’ll get right on it.

Dusty
July 29, 2021 6:04 am

‘Less than 1% probability’

These aren’t scientists. They’re carnival barkers.

commieBob
Reply to  Dusty
July 29, 2021 6:42 am

I have an entirely defensible claim:

There is way less than a 1% probability that the numbers they give are as accurate as they claim.

Even if they don’t supply an accuracy figure, they imply it by the number of significant digits they use to display a number. For instance, if they give a number as 147 that means it is between 146.5 and 147.5, elsewise they would give the number as 146 or 148. So, by giving a number as 147, they are claiming better than 0.7% accuracy.

bdgwx
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2021 7:51 am

Can you provide a concrete example of what you are talking about?

philincalifornia
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 9:20 am

Here’s one “Bright white sea ice reflects much more sunlight than sea water, so as sea ice melts, Earth is becoming less reflective.”

They couldn’t even be bothered with the two clicks that show Antarctic sea ice isn’t melting. Three clicks if you want to verify that yesterday was above the same day in 1979, the start of the satellite era of measurement. (Yes, I know it was earlier but let’s just play along with their fraudulent cherrypicking).

Here’s yer first click:

https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/

John Tillman
Reply to  philincalifornia
July 29, 2021 10:12 am

Antarctic sea ice has far greater effect on albedo than does Arctic, as so much more of it spreads to higher latitudes.

hiskorr
Reply to  John Tillman
July 29, 2021 11:48 am

Lower latitudes?

P{hil.
Reply to  John Tillman
July 30, 2021 6:50 am

But more of it melts during the summer, only about 15% of it remains from one year to the next.

Philip Rose
Reply to  John Tillman
August 1, 2021 4:57 am

Lately it has snowed frequently in Greenland, very large island to the south of the artic.

John Tillman
Reply to  philincalifornia
July 29, 2021 10:22 am

Yesterday’s Antarctic ice extent was about tied with 2015 for third highest on that date since dedicated satellite observations began in 1979. The two higher years were 2013 and the monster ice year of 2014.

Clearly, CO2 doesn’t melt sea ice.

bdgwx
Reply to  philincalifornia
July 29, 2021 10:54 am

I don’t think that has any relevance to the uncertainty on energy budgets. I will say that the NSIDC lists the uncertainty on sea ice anomalies as +/- 0.3 km^2.

Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 11:45 am

Okay, I’ll bite. If it isn’t relevant then why do the authors of the study mention it as one of their main concerns? Somewhat confusing.

bdgwx
Reply to  Richard Page
July 29, 2021 12:51 pm

My point was mainly with the interpretation of uncertainty given the figures in energy budget diagrams like the one from NASA used as a thumbnail for this blog post. My comment was not in reference to the Raghuraman et al. 2021 publication.

Richard Page
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 1:49 pm

Ah right. In that case, since satellite observation routinely undervalues sea ice coverage by about 30-50%, isn’t your uncertainty somewhat on the low side?

MarkW
Reply to  philincalifornia
July 29, 2021 11:21 am

They also completely ignore the fact that at low angles of incidence, the difference between the reflectivity of snow vs sea water is very small.

Matthew Bergin
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 11:43 am

For half the year at the poles the incidental solar energy is so vanishingly low as to be almost nonexistent 😉😁

Last edited 1 month ago by Matthew Bergin
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 9:12 pm

That is high angles of incidence, equal to low solar elevation angles.

commieBob
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 9:43 am

On the illustration showing the Earth’s energy balance, they show the total reflected solar radiation as 99.9 W/m2. That’s claiming an accuracy of 0.1%. At any moment that’s not the amount of energy reflected from the planet. In any event, there’s no instrument you can point at the Earth which will give the total reflected energy.

The reflected energy goes in all directions. To measure it all at once, you’d have to have a sensor that would surround the Earth. That would, of course, block the Sun’s radiation.

So, we have to sample and calculate. That entails making assumptions. Oh yes, and let’s not forget that the reflected energy exists at bandwidths ranging from microwaves to x-rays and beyond. How the heck do you separate reflected IR from emitted IR? You have to make more assumptions.

It’s not too rude to say that their claim of <0.1% error for reflected energy is total and utter B.S.

bdgwx
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2021 10:49 am

I believe you are referring to the Loeb et al. 2009 and Trenberth 2009 et al. 2009 blended energy budget. That 99.9 W/m2 is not the uncertainty nor does it contain any vestiges of it. Loeb et al. 2009 contains an entire section on the uncertainty here and lists the SW reflection uncertainty as +/- 2 W/m2. So their claim is for a 2% uncertainty.

Note that the ~100 w/m2 of reflected SW radiation is only that which is directed to space and is not absorbed by the planet. Terrestrial radiation is distinguished from solar radiation by the frequency. The former primarily being in the SW bands and the later in the LW bands. IR arriving from the Sun does not get reflected. It is absorbed.

I do agree that any claim of uncertainty < 0.1% for reflected SW radiation is utter B.S. But…no one is claiming that as far as I know.

commieBob
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 11:20 am

As I stated, I am referring to the illustration on the WUWT main page for this article. That illustration is similar to others commonly presented except maybe more egregious. Giving a number with three significant digits is a claim of accuracy.

You can claim that the significant digits in the illustration are the result of the illustrator, not scientists, but I guarantee that a graphic artist did not dream up those numbers. They came from some scientist somewhere, so yes, someone is making an unfounded claim of accuracy.

Anyway, back to the article on which we are commenting … If you apply proper error bars, Raghuraman et al’s claims of certainty fall apart.

bdgwx
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2021 12:29 pm

Yeah, that illustration has Loeb et al. 2009 and Trenberth et al. 2009 listed as references. I realize there are established rules for the display of digits based on quantified uncertainty, but you should not assume the display of digits always implies the uncertainty. The illustrator definitely should have included the lower and upper bounds for all figures.

I did read Raghuraman et al. 2021. They’re methodology quite clearly considers error bars so I’m not sure what the concern is here.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 11:40 am

Terrestrial radiation is distinguished from solar radiation by the frequency.

You are mixing ‘metaphors.’ At least units! Try using “wavelength” since you use implied wavelength in the names you use in the next sentence, i.e. “SW bands and the later [sic] in the LW bands.”

IR arriving from the Sun does not get reflected. It is absorbed.

That depends on the material and its refractive index in the IR. Most materials are more absorbent in the IR than in visible wavelengths, although there are frequently abrupt changes at specific wavelengths. However, for specular reflectors, particularly water, IR is totally reflected at glancing angles. Your claim is only correct for certain materials and then it is dependent on the angle of incidence and the variation of the extinction coefficient at specific IR wavelengths.

bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 12:19 pm

You definitely got me there. I should be more careful about usage of frequency and wavelength and make sure I’m consistent with it. I’ll definitely be more careful about that in the future.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 9:14 pm

Thank you for the acknowledgement. However, how about your blanket statement that IR arriving from the sun does not get reflected?

Near-IR is strongly reflected by chlorophyll!

bdgwx
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 30, 2021 5:04 am

I did a rough calculation and estimated that 0.2 W/m2 of solar IR is reflected back to space. That is small relative terrestrial radiation, but not insignificant. I concede that point. I should be more careful about blanket statements like that. They are almost never right.

How much solar IR do you think makes it to the surface?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  bdgwx
July 30, 2021 12:12 pm

They are almost never right.

🙂

You need to be more specific. The solar IR that makes it to the surface varies with time of day, latitude, season, cloudiness, specific humidity, and concentration and type of aerosols. It also varies a small amount with the solar sunspot cycle. Furthermore, are you asking about all wavelengths called IR, or just thermal IR?

commieBob
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 11:41 am

IR arriving from the Sun does not get reflected. It is absorbed.

That’s an assumption. Reality is more complicated. example

bdgwx
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2021 12:47 pm

Good point. I should be more careful about claiming that all solar IR is absorbed. It might not be. In fact, based on the paper you cited and doing some rough back-of-the-napkin calculations suggests that reflected solar IR could be as high as 1 W/m2 but more likely on the order of 0.2’ish W/m2. That’s not insignificant. Assuming I did the calculations right and no one has objection I’ll concede the point.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
lee
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 5:58 pm

“IR arriving from the Sun does not get reflected” So clouds are like a two-way mirror. Only stopping O/G IR?

bdgwx
Reply to  lee
July 29, 2021 6:44 pm

It is nuanced. I did a quick calculation suggesting that just under 1% of the incoming solar radiation is 4 um or above. The publication commiebob just posted suggests 15% of IR can be reflected by clouds. The biggest unknown for me is the coverage of high cirrus clouds which I estimated at 40%. That comes out at right at 0.2 W/m2 (340 * 0.01 * 0.15 * 0.4). If someone wants to throw out different figures that would be great. I’m not very confident with the result so I arbitrarily threw in a factor 5 for some wiggle room.

But to your point there is significantly more terrestrial IR than solar IR. So any increase in the return to the emission source whether it be reflected or absorbed and remitted blocks more outgoing terrestrial energy than incoming solar energy.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
Nick B
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2021 4:14 pm

The modern science does not depend on numbers.
It was very similar question on the radio:

  • What does it means – 70% of precipitation?
  • You know, there are ten of us and seven are considering rain
Reply to  Dusty
July 29, 2021 6:58 am

Almost as unlikely as a Trump victory in 2016 😉

Dusty
Reply to  E. Schaffer
July 29, 2021 8:00 am

I always have trouble assessing the direction an ‘odds’ that is presented suggest, especially when it is coupled with negatives and then comparing it to an analogy offered. But, thinking about your analogy here’s how I read it: Hillary stalwarts boasting a less than 1% chance of a Trump victory.

Based on that reading I’d have to give that mega +’s for the allusion of watching their reactions as the “less than 1%” changes as time goes on.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Dusty
July 29, 2021 7:06 am

Either he does not know the basics of thermodynamics or he does not know de basics of statistics.

Reply to  Joao Martins
July 29, 2021 11:17 am

Or both.

Auto

Richard Page
Reply to  auto
July 29, 2021 11:50 am

My money is on almost total ignorance. Outside of his specialism in ‘how to obtain grant funding’ that is.

dk_
July 29, 2021 6:10 am

What energy imbalance?

Nottoobrite
Reply to  dk_
July 29, 2021 6:56 am

Joe Biden ?????

Jim
Reply to  dk_
July 29, 2021 7:48 am

Koyaanisqatsi, I guess.

RicDre
Reply to  Jim
July 29, 2021 9:51 am

Koyaanisqatsi:

paolo piaggio
July 29, 2021 6:19 am

So the study contradicts this: https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/11/6/663?type=check_update&version=1

The author is saying that EEI is decreasing, reflecting the OHC derivative.

Whom should we give credit to?

Pablo
July 29, 2021 6:22 am

“We always think, ‘Increasing greenhouse gases means trapping more infrared heat’ — the classic greenhouse effect becomes larger,” said Raghuraman. “This is correct, but the flip side is that the resulting warmer planet now also radiates more infrared heat away to space, so the greenhouse gas heating impact is cancelled.”

Right.. so now CO2 causes : ” cloud cover changes ” not an enhanced “greenhouse effect”.

Richard M
Reply to  Pablo
July 29, 2021 8:16 am

This is likely correct. CO2 produced IR is very weak and thus enhances evaporation especially in warmer oceans. This enhances the evapo-convective forces which will lead to more cloud cover in those warmer regions (especially summer and day time in the extratropic areas).

The net result would be some warming in colder parts of the planet and more cloud cover over warmer parts of the planet. This will tend to moderate temperatures overall. Of course, latitudinal moderation will also decrease extreme weather.

Pablo
Reply to  Richard M
July 29, 2021 10:24 am

I agree. But this guy is saying.. “much of the imbalance increase comes from the fact that we are receiving the same amount of sunlight but reflecting back less, because increased greenhouse gases cause cloud cover changes,” implying less cloud cover.

Observer
Reply to  Pablo
July 29, 2021 12:41 pm

Clouds hold heat in as well as reflect it, remember.

Pablo
Reply to  Observer
July 29, 2021 1:02 pm

Only at night.

Reply to  Observer
July 30, 2021 11:40 am

not “hold” they do slow the movement of the IR waves but they do NOT “hold” any of it.

Prjindigo
July 29, 2021 6:22 am

I agree completely: Bad math isn’t a natural process.

Nottoobrite
Reply to  Prjindigo
July 29, 2021 6:58 am

Ah, the commander in Chief says he is .

Knalldi
July 29, 2021 6:24 am

As all involved [measurement] uncertainties are (far) greater than 1%, I doubt that he can falsify a hypothesis that narrowly.

Bill Powers
Reply to  Knalldi
July 29, 2021 7:07 am

Not only is he not in the neighborhood of 1% he isn’t even in the right state. What am I saying? He isn’t even on the right planet.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Bill Powers
July 29, 2021 9:23 am

Please stop saying derogatory things about planet Libtardia. The Libtardians mean well.

Reply to  philincalifornia
July 29, 2021 11:19 am

The Libtardians mean well.
The Libtardians mean well – for themselves.

Better?

Auto

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  philincalifornia
July 29, 2021 11:50 am

“The road to Hell is paved with good intentions.”

It is a corollary to Unintended Consequences.

Dennis H Cowdrick
July 29, 2021 6:25 am

So who is right?

https://rumble.com/vkd3jp-top-climate-scientist-dr.-willie-soon-predicts-global-cooling-for-next-20-3.html

It is also well known that the Earth has been MUCH warmer in the not-so-distant past!

July 29, 2021 6:27 am

“It is exceptionally unlikely — less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations in the climate system,” said Raghuraman.

I say bullsh!t.

Keep in mind that this warmist cabal has made more than 48 consecutive false predictions of climate disasters – the odds of this being mere random stupidity is 1 in ~281 trillion.

Last edited 1 month ago by ALLAN MACRAE
Richard M
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 29, 2021 8:19 am

His means of making this claim was to compare to climate models. The other possibility is that climate models are worthless piles of non-validated code.

MarkW
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 29, 2021 11:23 am

In the past, much bigger changes in planet temperature were entirely natural.
However there is only a 1% chance that the current one is natural.

Dave Fair
Reply to  ALLAN MACRAE
July 29, 2021 3:35 pm

UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs can’t even correctly represent the past. To say a bunch of models that get global average temperatures 3 C apart can get energy budget calculations within 1% is delusional.

Rah
July 29, 2021 6:29 am

There is a 100 percent chance that is total bull shit!

n.n
Reply to  Rah
July 29, 2021 6:38 am

His apology is plausible. but less than 1% probable. This is the state of modern science, the old/new “jurisprudence”, etc.

DMacKenzie
July 29, 2021 6:33 am

The article castigates the strawman they call “deniers” using an old debating trick. But there is a whole spectrum of people who expect more rationality than supposition in these extreme claims. A lot of these are very knowledgeable people who finished their engineering or other hard science degrees instead of opting for the easy grad studies courses in the environment department like Ragahuraman did.
I suppose I am a “half ***ed lukewarmer” in the sense that I agree the average temp. is up a degree since 1850 with about half of that caused by changes in land use and CO2….but a “denier” in the sense that I deny it is any real problem.

Last edited 1 month ago by DMacKenzie
DMacKenzie
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 29, 2021 7:47 am

The relevance of the paper’s findings can be summarized by one statement it contains…..”we begin with 2001”. FFS, not even a 30 year climate assessment period. Just a waste of attention span to read it. Seems you can now be published in Nature Communications if you know the symbol for “sigma”….

pHil R
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 29, 2021 10:45 am

If I’m not mistaken (and I’m not going back to check right now), even the CERES crew at NASA Langley (LaRC) only go to 2005 for their Earth’s Energy Imbalance (EEI) estimates. What makes his data back to 2001 any better?

Dave Fair
Reply to  pHil R
July 29, 2021 3:41 pm

He is a grad student in CliSciFi, that’s why. Right or wrong, on the surface his paper destroyed the CAGW theory; it is not GHGs disrupting the outward flow of LW radiation, it is CO2 destroying aerosols and clouds. Pal review has fallen apart.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  DMacKenzie
July 29, 2021 11:52 am

I suppose I am a “half ***ed lukewarmer”

Did you mean “half-fast?”

Tom in Florida
July 29, 2021 6:35 am

“The researchers hope that tracking the historical trends in this energy imbalance and understanding its components will improve the models of future climate change that drive policymaking and mitigation efforts.”

And I HOPE that tracking the historical trends in roulette number outcome will improve the models of future number outcome that drive my decision making.

But of course that would involve risking MY money, so maybe relying on hope is not a good thing for MY bankroll.

Joao Martins
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 29, 2021 7:12 am

Thank you for the intelligent, clear and sensible comment!

Observer
Reply to  Tom in Florida
July 29, 2021 12:44 pm

But how can the models be improved? I thought the science was “settled”?

Richard Page
Reply to  Observer
July 29, 2021 1:55 pm

Chucking them in the bin would be a vast improvement.

July 29, 2021 6:40 am

so-called climate deniers have continued to suggest that the observed changes might be a fluke — just natural variation.”

“It is exceptionally unlikely — less than 1% probability — that this trend can be explained by natural variations in the climate system,” said Raghuraman.

This system of thought is wrong, and the people pushing are simply activists.

Climate change is due to natural ocean variation driven by solar variation.
comment image

The use of the pejorative ‘denier’ is a dead giveaway that this article is just more politics.

The authors shown their hand in the abstract (my bold):

“The observed trend in Earth’s energy imbalance (TEEI), a measure of the acceleration of heat uptake by the planet, is a fundamental indicator of perturbations to climate. Satellite observations (2001–2020) reveal a significant positive globally-averaged TEEI of 0.38 ± 0.24 Wm−2decade−1 , but the contributing drivers have yet to be understood. Using climate model simulations, we show that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1% probability) that this trend can be explained by internal variability. Instead, TEEI is achieved only upon accounting for the increase in anthropogenic radiative forcing and the associated climate response. TEEI is driven by a large decrease in reflected solar radiation and a small increase in emitted infrared radiation. This is because recent changes in forcing and feedbacks are additive in the solar spectrum, while being nearly offset by each other in the infrared. We conclude that the satellite record provides clear evidence of a human-influenced climate system.

What is clear and evident, as they don’t understand the drivers, is their ignorance.

DMacKenzie
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 29, 2021 7:25 am

“…..We conclude that the satellite record provides….”. And what does the satellite record show about the Little Ice Age, The Roman and Minoan warm period…and oh yeah, the Ice Age ? Do I need a /sarc?

Rick C
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 29, 2021 9:45 am

Yes, and why do they exclude the 1979-2000 portion of the satellite record? Looks a lot like a big bowl of cherries to me.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rick C
July 29, 2021 3:50 pm

Guesses about the energy imbalance wasn’t available before about 2005. I don’t know where the grad student got his 2001 to 2004 data. I’m not about to spend time digging into this steaming pile to find out.

MarkW
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 29, 2021 11:25 am

Willis has just posted a really good take down of the nonsense used to support this paper’s predetermined conclusion.

Observer
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 29, 2021 12:47 pm

Satellite observations (2001–2020) reveal a significant positive globally-averaged TEEI of 0.38 ± 0.24 Wm−2decade−1 , but the contributing drivers have yet to be understood.

0.38 ± 0.24??? Are they having a laugh?

Good enough for government work, I suppose.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bob Weber
July 29, 2021 3:48 pm

Remember when the UN IPCC trotted out CliSciFi models showing with and without human drivers. Since the models were tuned to CO2 using aerosols to hindcast, naturally the “with” tracked observed and “without” showed cooling. This grad student is attempting the same trick. No wonder the pal reviewers liked it.

garboard
July 29, 2021 6:40 am

‘ reflecting back less , because of changes in cloud cover caused by greenhouse gasses ” . totally unfounded speculation . its still completely unknown whether cloud cover has increased or decreased and what effect increased co2 has had on clouds . junk science built on wild ass guesses and assumptions . since they’re always saying warming has put more water vapor into the atmosphere wouldn’t that mean more clouds ?. clouds and their effects on weather are almost totally absent in CC thinking . clouds are the weather maker .

Last edited 1 month ago by garboard
AGW is Not Science
Reply to  garboard
July 29, 2021 7:07 am

The pretzel-twisting logic is nothing short of amazing. First, CO2 was going to be amplified by a “positive feedback loop” of increased water vapor; now, it’s apparently going to reduce cloud cover, somehow in the supposed presence of more water vapor in the atmosphere.

Yet, still without a scrap of empirical evidence, they blame CO2 as the ultimate “driver” of the Earth’s climate. They aren’t even aware of their own ignorance about what drives the Earth’s climate.

As I like to put it – We don’t have sufficient information of sufficient quality over a sufficient period of time to say anything reasonably “scientific” about what changes are occurring, what the driving forces are, and what’s going to happen when. We can hypothesize and guess all we want, we just don’t have the level of information required to divine the climate’s changes with this absurd degree of precision. I’m much closer to being completely accurate when I say that there is a 100% chance that the authors of this “study” don’t have a clue what they’re talking about.

And of course, the old “bad weather is caused by warming climate” bullshit – the same thing they told us was going to happen when climate was cooling in the 1970s (which at least was closer to a realistic claim, since colder climate increases the temperature differential between the poles and the tropics, meaning more violent weather in “extra tropical” zones). Put the various blather together and we’re supposed to be stupid enough to believe that the Earth was in some sort of “climate nirvana,” any departure from which will make the weather “more extreme.” Plus the underlying assumption that the climate would be unchanging absent human “inputs” which are minuscule.

The Dark Lord
Reply to  garboard
July 29, 2021 10:50 am

more water vapor <> more clouds … clouds require more than water vapor to form …

July 29, 2021 6:41 am

So let us say it is not caused naturally, then what is the rationale it has to be CO2? Is it because that is the only possibility the authors can imagine? This is an unbased logical leap.

And I am not just pointing that out, because it is formally wrong, but rather because I know CO2 just does not have the potential to drive climate like this. Contrails are a much potent agent and they are “man made” as well.

For that reason “not natural” will not mean CO2, or prove the CO2 theory respectively.

David Dibbell
July 29, 2021 6:44 am

From the article, this paragraph is stunning:
****
“We always think, ‘Increasing greenhouse gases means trapping more infrared heat’ — the classic greenhouse effect becomes larger,” said Raghuraman. “This is correct, but the flip side is that the resulting warmer planet now also radiates more infrared heat away to space, so the greenhouse gas heating impact is cancelled. Instead, much of the imbalance increase comes from the fact that we are receiving the same amount of sunlight but reflecting back less, because increased greenhouse gases cause cloud cover changes, less aerosols in the air to reflect sunlight — that is, cleaner air over the U.S. and Europe — and sea-ice decreases.” (Bright white sea ice reflects much more sunlight than sea water, so as sea ice melts, Earth is becoming less reflective.)
****
So the news is… wait for it… NEVER MIND ABOUT THAT “HEAT-TRAPPING” THING. It’s the cleaner air that did it!

Do GHG emissions drive sea-ice decreases without actually “trapping” heat? Do GHG emissions cause cloud cover changes without actually “trapping” heat? And do GHG emissions really decrease reflective aerosols somehow?

Dave Fair
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 29, 2021 4:00 pm

There has to be something lost or left out in the study summary. The whole aerosol/cloud discussion is nonsensical. The mention of Western reductions in aerosols as being causative ignores developing countries’ increases in aerosol production. We have gone down the rabbit hole with the grad student. Maybe he will get a ‘Mannian’ Phd where he pulls a disappearing GHG theory (Medieval Warm Period) trick.

Notanacademic
Reply to  David Dibbell
July 29, 2021 4:19 pm

I agree a stunning paragraph but for me the most stunning part of the paragraph is one line “so the greenhouse gas heating impact is cancelled ” hang on a minute isn’t that the very thing the warmists and ecoloons have used for decades to scare the crap out of everyone? So false alarm, no need to keep crucifying the countryside with windmills and solar panels, I can keep my house with central heating, I don’t have to go back to the dark ages and live in a mud hut. I don’t have to replace my little suv with a donkey. Oh no I forgot the bit about changing cloud cover which is all our fault and has never happened before. I shall call my donkey Donald.

Old Mike
July 29, 2021 6:44 am

Just 19 years of data, really? Once again one of those amazing computational models, that has been carefully tuned to give the wanted answer.

This paper is destined to become yet another prediction failure.

Head meet Wall.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Old Mike
July 29, 2021 11:58 am

It is at least a couple years short of a full solar-magnetic sunspot cycle.

Mark Twain — ‘There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.’

Pauleta
July 29, 2021 6:46 am

Man, I don’t trust full professors nowadays, with years of experience, why should I trust a grad slave that published on the easiest journal to publish, from the same editorial group that published the arsenic DNA?

Ed Zuiderwijk
July 29, 2021 6:47 am

I stopped reading at: ‘stored in the ocean’.

Andrew Burnette
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 29, 2021 7:05 am

I stopped at: “…manifests in many ways: higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.”

Ha ha. They can’t even be bothered to check the empirical data, which completely contradict the coherent parts of the quote.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  Andrew Burnette
July 29, 2021 7:12 am

Ditto here.

Steve Case
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 29, 2021 7:31 am

The IPCC’s AR4 Report Chapter 5 page 387 says:

“The oceans are warming. Over the period 1961 to 2003, global ocean temperature has risen by 0.10°C from the surface to a depth of 700 m.” 

Really they can measure that to three places? Besides, an increase of a tenth of a degree isn’t going to warm anything more than a tenth of a degree, and isn’t likely to cause draughts, floods, hurricanes, blizzards and even deadlier extreme events.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Ed Zuiderwijk
July 29, 2021 4:07 pm

The oceans have been warming a bit, but not enough to significantly alter the Earth’s climate. The atmosphere has only been warming at about 0.14 C/decade (UAH over land and ocean combined). I know of no physics that would have the approximately 1 C warming over 150 years drive an increase in global bad weather.

Michael in Dublin
July 29, 2021 6:51 am

If there were a real imbalance then the earth would crash and burn (figuratively?). Over the past seven decades I have through empirical observation not seen this happening.

Eric Vieira
July 29, 2021 7:03 am

And this is supposed to be a “peer reviewed” paper in “Nature Communications”.
That journal has completely lost all credibility …

Reply to  Eric Vieira
July 29, 2021 7:23 am

I think they jumped that shark a while back.

Richard Page
Reply to  Eric Vieira
July 29, 2021 12:07 pm

Now don’t be nasty – they reviewed the spelling and grammar and it passed!

JBP
July 29, 2021 7:04 am

There is also a 99% probability that he will get more grant money to expand this wonderful theory.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  JBP
July 29, 2021 12:00 pm

And, he will get his PhD by pleasing his dissertation committee.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 4:10 pm

Will his overturning the GHG blanket theory have any impact on how the committee looks at the paper?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 29, 2021 9:20 pm

Possibly, if they are bright enough to understand the implications. That is not a given, since they are in the discipline of climatology.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 10:26 pm

Wild. The paper clearly states that CO2’s effect on aerosols and clouds is driving CAGW, not its LW radiative retention properties. One would have to be blind to miss that one. Was it his buddy grad students pal reviewing his paper?

Tom Halla
July 29, 2021 7:04 am

Anyone using the term “denier” is confessing that they are an advocate, not a scientist.

Carlo, Monte
July 29, 2021 7:09 am

Pure, raw, unfiltered climate pr0n.

Steve Case
July 29, 2021 7:09 am

Groan! There are two parts to this: 

PART ONE:
“But for decades, that system has been out of balance. Sunlight continues to pour in, and Earth isn’t releasing enough, either as reflected solar radiation or as emitted infrared radiation. The extra heat trapped around our globe — some 90% of which is stored in the ocean — adds energy to worldwide climate systems…”

PART TWO:
“…and manifests in many ways: higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.”

Part 1 is reasonable. The planet has warmed about a degree since the 19th century, and it is reasonable to say that increased CO2 has played a role in that warming.

It’s also reasonable to report that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.

Part 2 is not reasonable and is not supported by anything other than good old fashioned fear mongering & bullshit.

It should be noted that the claims in Part 2 are from the eurekalert.org/news-release and not the cited Princeton peer reviewed publication.

MarkW
Reply to  Steve Case
July 29, 2021 11:29 am

This so called balance has resulted in only a few tenths of a degree of warming over the last 70 years. Over the last decade it has actually resulted in cooling.
Tell me again why I’m supposed to be panicking?

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Steve Case
July 29, 2021 12:02 pm

What does that say about Eureka Alert?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Steve Case
July 29, 2021 10:40 pm

Again, UN IPCC CliSciFi GCMs are tuned to reflect only AGW, not natural influences. One or more of the UN IPCC Assessment Reports used this trick to “prove” only Man’s influences had any impact on observed temperatures by comparing GCM runs with and without anthropogenic influence, both compared to observed temperatures. Son of a gun, they “proved” that the world would be cooling rapidly without Man’s influence.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Rudi
July 29, 2021 7:13 am

About as unlikely as the US women soccer team would loose with 0-3 against Sweden.

Last edited 1 month ago by Rudi
Al Kour
Reply to  Rudi
July 29, 2021 9:23 am

“You are a looser.” – Rudi’s grammar teacher.

MarkW
Reply to  Rudi
July 29, 2021 11:30 am

When you concentrate on how woke you want to be, instead of the game you are supposed to be playing, it’s amazing the things that can happen.

Richard Page
Reply to  Rudi
July 29, 2021 12:11 pm

I’m sorry but did you just say that all of the US womens soccer team are loose?

PCman999
July 29, 2021 7:17 am

90% of the energy went into the oceans, yet the average temperature went up some fraction of a degree. I’ll run around screaming about the climate emergency after I finished my coffee. Yawn. We’re all doomed. Yawn.

July 29, 2021 7:17 am

I think I see the problem:

METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Jean Parisot
July 29, 2021 10:37 am

Just wondering how else it could be done?

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 11:30 am

Perhaps look at the data?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 2:09 pm

You’re right, such a pointless exercise in alarmist projection could not be done using actual data. Only climate models produce such obtuse nonsense.

Nick Kilenyi
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 31, 2021 12:28 am

How about observations, measurements, and use of historical records?

Climate modelling is Cargo Cult Science, and thus utterly worthless.

July 29, 2021 7:18 am

It’s a shame what college students are being taught these days. Climate science turned on its head… Draw the conclusion then fill in the blanks to support the narrative.

Richard Page
Reply to  Dave
July 29, 2021 12:20 pm

No. I think that’s how climate science got started in the 70’s and that’s pretty much how it’s continued since. I think it’s fair to say that modern climate science bears no relation to the excellent research that has been done by most reputable physicists over the years.

PCman999
July 29, 2021 7:25 am

Temperatures have been relatively flat since about 2000, when incidentally co2 started increasing at a high level, especially in China and India. CO2 greenhouse theory therefore disproved.

Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2021 7:31 am

After careful consideration and research, I estimate the chance that these “scientists” are correct to be 0.0000000000000000000000000000000001%.
Give or take.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2021 12:23 pm

Hrm. Can we see the error range on that figure please? It does seem to be a little bit high.

Rick W Kargaard
July 29, 2021 7:36 am

Earth’s energy balance??? There is no balance. The system is not perfect and is chaotic so a sustained balance is not possible. It will strive toward a balance as opposing forces tug at each other but can only be achieved for an instant while changing from one state to another.
What is inevitable is that it will change which is evidenced by the large climate variations throughout the Earth’s history.

Steve Case
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
July 29, 2021 9:24 am

Some time ago Kip Hansen posted this illustration of a chaotic system and that’s only with two parameters. Just think how chaotic the climate system is. Besides that there’s this from the IPCC:

“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”

WayBackMachine

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Steve Case
July 29, 2021 2:14 pm

I use that quotation almost weekly buy the AGW true believers just slough it off as unimportant. Hell, astrology has a better track record than modern climate science.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
July 29, 2021 10:43 am

Earth’s energy balance??? There is no balance. “

Of course there is!
If not then either the Earth would slowly cool.
Over an extended period.
Or slowly warm.
It is.
Just because there is necessary “noise” in such a complicated system as it moves absorbed heat around (weather).
It does NOT mean there is not (or should be after an appropriate amount of time following extreme orbital characteristics) an overarching energy balance between that absorbed from the Sun and that emitted back to space by the Earth.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 11:35 am

I see you believe that whatever imbalance may exist, must be permanent.
The reality is that the so called balance constantly shifts, sometimes incoming exceeds outgoing, sometimes outgoing exceeds incoming.
The causes, sizes and durations of these shifts occur quite naturally and have been happening since the Sun first started fusing hydrogen.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 2:45 pm

Exactly right.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 12:07 pm

If not then either the Earth would slowly cool … Or slowly warm.

Or, both, “over an extended period.”

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 2:52 pm

And it is obvious that both have happened in the past.

Richard Page
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 12:38 pm

Non – linear! What part of that do you fail to grasp? There is no straight – line, steady state system; the Earth appears to exist almost in a constant state of change, warming then cooling then warming again. Which really shouldn’t come as any kind of surprise given daily and annual rotation does exactly the same flipping thing at any point on the Earth’s surface.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard Page
July 29, 2021 2:18 pm

As I have been saying ever since they adopted the equivocal term “climate change” and left global cooling and AGW in the dust. Change is the default condition of what is improperly called climate.

Rick W Kargaard
Reply to  Richard Page
July 29, 2021 2:47 pm

Yes, and consequently we have seasons over a large part of the earth.

MarkW
Reply to  Rick W Kargaard
July 29, 2021 11:32 am

As the Earth orbits around the sun, it’s distance from the sun varies. Since the Earth has mass, the energy flows both into and out of the Earth will always be out of balance.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 12:47 pm

Add in daily rotation and axial tilt and it becomes a very complicated cyclical process. I’ve thought for a while now that there is almost a fractal pattern quality about the change in temperatures on a daily, yearly and longer period cycles.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Richard Page
July 29, 2021 2:21 pm

Don’t forget the helical path our planet follows around the Milky Way.

Andrew Wilkins
July 29, 2021 7:43 am

METHOD OF RESEARCH

Computational simulation/modeling

Yep, it’s complete bollocks. File it in the “ignore” tray.

Coeur de Lion
July 29, 2021 7:48 am

Nineteen years is absurd. Last UAH put global temp back to 1988. Watching for July’s

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
July 29, 2021 10:53 am

Yes it did – and only 20 months ago it was 0.6C higher.
While 5 years ago it was at 0.7C higher.
Having fallen to something similar to now between.
Back 9 years ago it was 0.4C lower than now and a full 1.1C lower than the peak in 2016!
All meaningless in terms of the long-term trend

Why is it SO difficult to grasp that there IS NV in the climate’s GMST?
The ENSO cycle being by far the greatest modulator of that.
The test of the long-term trend in Mr Roy’s UAH V6.0 is in the line of least squares though it from 1979 to now..
It stands (from his website) at …..

The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.14 C/decade (+0.12 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 4:26 pm

Thank you for pointing out the UAH6 0.14 C/decade trend from its beginning in 1979, Anthony. That was a period of significantly increasing CO2 atmospheric concentrations. It also included a period of cyclical upswing in the long-term minor secular warming from the Little Ice Age. That pretty much puts a hard cap on how much warming we should expect in the future.

Last edited 1 month ago by Dave Fair
Hubert
July 29, 2021 7:48 am

less than 1% of climate experts understand the nature …

Jim
July 29, 2021 7:51 am

This kid now has it made for the next few years, in terms of grant funding.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Jim
July 29, 2021 4:28 pm

Assuming his destruction of the GHG ‘blanket’ theory goes unnoticed.

mark from the midwest
July 29, 2021 7:54 am

They have a simulation model that starts with the assumption that 90% of the extra heat is stored in the oceans. If they’re off by 1% in the estimate of the assumption that explains their result, pretty much completely.

n.n
Reply to  mark from the midwest
July 29, 2021 9:40 am

The consensus or flat-Earth model, literally (e.g. simulation), and socially. One step forward, two steps backward.

Richard Page
Reply to  n.n
July 29, 2021 12:53 pm

Flat earth, fixed point with the sun moving around it by the look of things. More than 2 steps back – this model is pre – Galileo!

2hotel9
July 29, 2021 7:59 am

Perhaps these pinheads will toddle through and see it, so I will ‘splain it one more once. The climate changes constantly, always has and always will. Humans are not causing it to change and can not stop it from changing. CO2 is plant food not pollution, more is better, less is bad. In summation hubris is not a positive character trait, check yourselves before you wreck yourselves.

philincalifornia
Reply to  2hotel9
July 29, 2021 10:46 am

Let ’em knowingly have a wasted life. They only get one.

MarkW
July 29, 2021 8:08 am

The old, if it’s caused by man, it must be bad line of religious thinking.

griff
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 9:19 am

Why can’t man cause bad things? Climate change is a bad thing and man caused it.

n.n
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 9:37 am

Climate change is a recurring phenomenon of unqualified character. Warming has generally positive effects for the viability of humans, fauna, and flora.

philincalifornia
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 10:45 am

Struggling with evidence-free assertions again griff. Why don’t you do what you think you do best and give us a Polar sea ice report …..

…. oooooh err, not today. That link isn’t evidence-fwee and it’s howwid. Waaaaah, where’s my Mummy.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 11:38 am

Reading comprehension is not your strong suit, is it.

I never said that man can’t cause bad things. I said that these people make the assumption that any change caused by man is bad. If you can’t see the difference, then there is no hope for you. (Then again, we already knew that.)

There is no evidence that climate change is bad. The climate has been changing since the Earth first developed an atmosphere.
There is no evidence that man is the sole cause of what little climate change is currently happening.

Dave Fair
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 4:31 pm

The only change is a slight warming and a little more rain. All good.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 12:10 pm

Why do you believe that Man can’t cause good things?

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 12:56 pm

“Man caused it” – Griffy you are egotistical beyond belief. Go and get help before you need to be sectioned for your own good.

TonyG
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 1:19 pm

That’s exactly the opposite of what Mark said, though.

Why can’t man cause GOOD things?

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 2:30 pm

Change is the natural default condition of any chaotic system. Man did not “cause” it and it’s neither a “bad thing” … nor a good thing. It merely exists. The term you use to describe the naturally coupled, non-linear chaotic system “climate change” is a logical fallacy … an appeal to ambiguity … equivocation.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 2:54 pm

Circular reasoning much?

MarkW
July 29, 2021 8:11 am

If there is such a huge imbalance, why isn’t the planet warming by more than it is?

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 9:23 am

Is this supposed to be a counter argument?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  nyolci
July 29, 2021 10:51 am

Cue the professional apologists…

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
July 29, 2021 11:45 am

It is, though I’m not surprised that you don’t see it.

nyolci
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2021 7:33 am

you don’t see it.

Don’t see what, genius? 🙂 BTW the planet is not warming by more than it is is because of the numbers, you know, those things scientists are extremely good at.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
July 29, 2021 2:33 pm

Is this supposed to be a counter argument?

It’s certainly one of them. There are many more, especially the one showing the study to be fact free.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 30, 2021 7:34 am

Fact free? Rory, you’re again confabulating… Please come back if you are able to understand the meaning of “empirical law”. Until you stop being illiterate in basic things you can’t assess whether something is “fact free”.

Last edited 1 month ago by nyolci
Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
July 30, 2021 10:10 am

Prove it.

Clearly you have no idea what empirical means.

BTW the planet is not warming by more than it is is because of the numbers

That is not an argument. It’s hand waving.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 11:03 am

it is only of the order of + 0.4 to 0.8 W/m2.
And ~ 93% is being taken up by the oceans.

Richard Page
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 12:59 pm

Hey I thought it was 90% just a few comments ago? Keep commenting and you’ll get it up to 97% yet.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 3:10 pm

And ~ 93% is being taken up by the oceans.

Now prove it.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 29, 2021 10:58 pm

The oceans had been warming, both before and after 1950. I’m not sure if current data indicates recent ocean cooling.

Dr. Roy Spencer has done some calculations of ocean warming since about 1950. IIRC, ocean warming since then, from all drivers, is about 1% (maybe up to 2%, stretching it) of the energy flows into and out of the Earth. Read what he has to say about it in his ebook “An Inconvenient Deception.”

Rory Forbes
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 29, 2021 11:47 pm

Read what he has to say about it in his ebook “An Inconvenient Deception.”

That’s for the tip … I shall.

nyolci
Reply to  Rory Forbes
July 30, 2021 7:36 am

Now prove it.

You’re kindly referred to the relevant literature. Just as one doesn’t have to prove the Pythagorean theorem every time, already proved scientific results can be used without proving them.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  nyolci
July 30, 2021 9:59 am

In other words, you have none and have no clue where to find it if it did exist.

frankclimate
July 29, 2021 8:22 am

From the “Methods” section: “We analyzed 47 CMIP6 coupled models’ piControl simulations …”
This brand new article in “science” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/07/un-climate-panel-confronts-implausibly-hot-forecasts-future-warming contains a message by Gavin Schmidt (NASA); ” Already scientific papers are appearing using CMIP’s unconstrained worst-case scenarios for 2100, adding fire to what are already well-justified fears. But that practice needs to change, Schmidt says. “You end up with numbers for even the near-term that are insanely scary—and wrong.” Nothing more to say.

Dave Fair
Reply to  frankclimate
July 29, 2021 11:00 pm

But Schmidt and the boys still run their CliSciFi models with them and publish their results.

Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2021 8:26 am

90% of this “energy imbalance” has “gone into the oceans”, where it can’t be measured. How convenient. But, they “know it’s there”. Riiiiiiight.

Richard Page
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2021 1:03 pm

Yup they know it’s there ‘cos they dyed all the affected water with a blue-green dye. See that’s smart, that is!

bdgwx
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2021 1:51 pm

There are several OHC timeseries available. For example, Cheng et al. 2021 is one such timeseries. There are others available. Clearly it can be measured. Do you actually mean that you reject the measurements?

Dave Fair
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 4:40 pm

The recent ARGO measurements are unalarming. One of the reasons the prior study began in 2005 is that they needed the accuracy of ARGO combined with CERES in dealing with quantities that are miniscule and only now becoming measurable. The science is evolving rapidly and CliSciFi is back in the Climategate stone age.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
July 29, 2021 4:35 pm

Dr. Roy Spenser’s work shows an ocean heating-driven EEI that is unalarming.

Climate believer
July 29, 2021 8:28 am

“higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events…..pretty Polly! pretty Polly!… Polly want a biscuit!”

Thomas Gasloli
July 29, 2021 8:30 am

Add Princeton to the list of Universities NOT to send your children to. Imagine spending the kind of money it cost to go to Princeton and ending up with just another credentialed moron.

Reply to  Thomas Gasloli
July 30, 2021 7:11 am

Or a supreme court justice or the richest person in the world. 😉

Richard M
July 29, 2021 8:31 am

oceans store 90% of this excess heat

The other possibility is that the oceans have been warmed by some other mechanism and then share 10% of that energy with the atmosphere. They never discount this possibility so the claim about less than 1% chance the EEI increase is natural is nothing but an outright lie.

In fact, ocean warming appears to have started around 200-400 years ago in some places. Here’s one example.
comment image?resize=720%2C405&ssl=1

Dusty
Reply to  Richard M
July 29, 2021 9:31 am

Not to annoy, but can you give a hint as to how the temperature circa -7000 (or any other time prior to the invention of the thermometer) was determined?

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Dusty
July 29, 2021 12:21 pm

https://www2.usgs.gov/landresources/lcs/paleoclimate/proxies.asp

Actually, temperature is defined as a function of the average velocity or motion of the atoms and molecules of which a substance is composed, correcting for the specific heat. It is very difficult to accurately make such a determination. Therefore, liquids that expand on heating are used as a proxy for the ambient temperature. Liquids contained in a calibrated glass stem are called thermometers. They have a disadvantage that they can only determine the temperature at the instant they are read (with the caveat that Min-Max thermometers retain the range between readings and re-setting). Virtually all temperature measurements, now or in the past, are by proxy.

Dusty
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 31, 2021 6:21 pm

Thank you.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Richard M
July 29, 2021 11:13 am

SO why have we not discovered this extra source of energy heating the oceans that just happens to coincide with a 50% rise in a non-condensing atmospheric GHG?

Why haven’t we noticed this warm water rushing to the surface and causing an anomalous zone/zones of high SSTs ?
After all hot water rises and it has to get to the surface to heat the atmosphere.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 11:49 am

The problem is that the error bars on this claimed warming are 5 to 10 times greater than the warming itself.
Only those who are paid to see, can see it.
PS: The planet has been warming for around 150 years. Long before the CO2 levels started rising significantly.
If it was possible to actually measure the oceans warming, such warming wouldn’t be in the slightest bit surprising, nor would such warming be evidence of catastrophic CO2 generated warming.

Last edited 1 month ago by MarkW
bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 1:53 pm

Can you post a link to the dataset you are looking at which publishes error bars 5-10x greater than the warming itself? I’d like to review it too.

Last edited 1 month ago by bdgwx
MarkW
Reply to  bdgwx
July 29, 2021 5:03 pm

Simple, the best sensors have a precision of 0.5C or so, out of the box, degrading as they age.
The claimed temperature rise is about 0.01C.
The number of sensors is pathetically inadequate to measure the entire ocean with any degree of accuracy.

If anything, I gave your side the benefit of the doubt.

bdgwx
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 6:37 pm

Let me be more specific. Which dataset that publishes a global mean temperature timeseries and accompanying uncertainty analysis are you looking at that shows X C/decade of warming and +/-5X C/decade of uncertainty?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  bdgwx
July 30, 2021 1:54 am

He cant as there isn’t any.
Just another perpetual myth on here.

The sensors are accurate to 0.002C
as I have posted up twice in contemporary treads.

For denizens nothing that science can do to measure heat content on the planet is good enough.
Ergo we don’t know enough.
Ergo lets do nothing.
But actually things are being done as fast as is possible in an imperfect world.
So it’s OK
And here is just the remnants of ideological bias in it’s death throws.

MarkW
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 30, 2021 6:39 am

Accurate to 0.002C? You are utterly delusional. They can’t get that can of accuracy in carefully calibrated laboratory settings.

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  MarkW
July 30, 2021 12:35 pm

Where do they get these numbers? Disneyland?

Richard Page
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 1:12 pm

If you reread what you have just written, I think you have just tried to disprove all of the AGW climate change in one go. Well done. Dasvidaniya Ivan, for you the war is over.

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Richard Page
July 30, 2021 1:55 am

Eh?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Anthony Banton
July 29, 2021 4:46 pm

The oceans warmed and cooled dramatically without Man’s paltry inputs.

Richard Page
Reply to  Richard M
July 29, 2021 1:05 pm

Or they got their sums wrong in the first place and nobody wants to be the first to own up!

Giordano Milton
July 29, 2021 8:42 am

First, pull a number you like out of your . . . the air (one that sounds impressive, like 97% or <1%), then make an argument without any evidence that you can assign cause, effect, and predict implications. Collect check.

Charles Fairbairn
July 29, 2021 8:53 am

The basic science says that the Hydrological Cycle halts the Greenhouse effect when the atmosphere becomes saturated with water; but I would NOT expect a graduate student to know that.
The current mindset in our universities doesn’t appear to teach that sort of thing.

Perhaps he should now explain why the ocean temperatures never get much above 32C in spite of millions of years of relentless solar radiation and why this 32C figure. Also what would the figure be in the absence of water?

Alan
July 29, 2021 8:55 am

He’s a young guy, he doesn’t want to get cancelled.

Michael in Dublin
July 29, 2021 8:56 am

climate scientists have warned for a half-century that this was the inevitable result of adding too much carbon dioxide to the atmosphere

Strictly speaking are there are no “climate scientists.” At best they are a jack of all trades (sciences) and master of none. There are various scientific fields with specialized scientists (masters): biology, geology, chemistry, physics and the likes. A biologist has a broad grasp of his field who then focuses on a particular area. He knows enough to critically evaluate the research of other biologists – even if it means first some selective reading up on the topic. The same applies to the other sciences.

Is a “climate scientist” sufficiently competent to draw, analyse and evaluate a huge quantity of climate information from various sciences? Understanding climate requires multidisciplinary contributions. A “climate scientist” can only have a broad grasp of one or two of the contributing sciences. He may not even have a good grounding in Mathematics and Statistics, or perhaps he only specialized in Statistics. If someone disputes his assertions, even someone from the pure sciences, his reflex reaction is to disparage him because he is not a climate scientist.

It may be a generalization but it appears that flawed reasoning and logic is what climate scientists have in common, whether male or female. Perhaps if they spent more time outside and far less pouring over the climate models they would be enlightened.

Last edited 1 month ago by Michael in Dublin
griff
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 29, 2021 9:18 am

Well the UK Met Office, who know a thing or two about weather, just presented evidence the UK climate is already changed, having become both warmer and wetter…

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 11:52 am

Too bad actual scientists who spend their time studying weather, laugh at the clowns at the Met Office.

Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 11:54 am

Griff,
The Met Office may know about weather [climate? Maybe less so?] presented assertions, with some numbers [look carefully cherry-picked to me].
Mike Kendon – lead author, quoted by the BBC at https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57988023: –
“As it continues to warm we are going to see more and more extreme weather such as heatwaves and floods.””
But we know that warmed Poles reduces the energy available to causer storms, as the Differences are less.
And the IPCC can’t see what he claims . . . .

Out of interest, in what era do you think was the climate ideal?
You have all of time up to today to choose from.
Please give some coherent reason. Thanks.

Auto

Climate believer
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 12:15 pm

The Met Office talking about rainfall:

” Annual trends are small relative to variability between years”

“It is also unclear how, or if these trends can be linked directly to climate change.”

Don’t worry the useful idiot Grifter will link anything and everything for the good of the narrative.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 12:25 pm

You apparently don’t know the difference between a meteorologist and a climatologist, which isn’t surprising.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 5:05 pm

Most climatologists don’t know the difference either.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 9:23 pm

We can add journalists to that list, also.

Richard Page
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 1:18 pm

I disagree – they presented an opinion which, given their long string of failed forecasts longer than 2-3 days over the past couple of years, I would be inclined to disregard entirely. The Met office has become a rather expensive joke I’m afraid.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 2:43 pm

The Met office are the SOURCE of the climate goat rodeo. They’re more unreliable than the NASA/GISS clown show.

Lrp
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 3:09 pm

It should be Meth Office

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 11:09 pm

A process beginning up to 300 years ago. Some multi-decadal periods warm faster while some cool. The late 20th Century was a short period where temperatures were on a cyclic upswing. The whole CliSciFi CAGW fearmongering is based on temperature estimates over a period of about 25 years. Not a very solid foundation for fundamentally changing our society, economy and energy systems.

Mr.
Reply to  Michael in Dublin
July 29, 2021 9:29 am

This!

Andy Pattullo
July 29, 2021 9:10 am

Someone, somewhere on Earth is doing real science. Not these folks however. Conclusions-driven evidence is now the usual way to build an “academic” career.

griff
Reply to  Andy Pattullo
July 29, 2021 9:17 am

And your science based evidence or argument that what they say isn’t the case is…?

Carlo, Monte
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 10:53 am

Oh the irony…

Richard Page
Reply to  Carlo, Monte
July 29, 2021 1:21 pm

No! Please say it ain’t so. Can I believe my eyes? Griffy is actually asking someone to supply evidence? You’re right, this is too much.

MarkW
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 11:52 am

The fact that the real world consistently refuses to follow along with what the models claim it should be doing.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 12:28 pm

You are tedious! Many of us here have presented numerous scientific reasons why the alarmist claims have weak support, at best.

MarkW
Reply to  Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 5:06 pm

griff doesn’t recognize anyone who disagrees with him as a scientist. Which means that he gets to ignore any of these non-scientists.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 9:25 pm

He never has acknowledged that Crockford is a scientist. Like Humpty Dumpty, a word means whatever griff wants it to mean.

Rory Forbes
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 2:47 pm

I’ll just offer the Null Hypothesis in response to your inquiry. Falsify that and you’ll gain some credibility here.

Dave Fair
Reply to  griff
July 29, 2021 4:50 pm

What does who say?

Andy Pattullo
Reply to  griff
July 30, 2021 8:07 am

I don’t need to read the conclusions of a published “scientific” paper to know from the methods that the conclusions are not reliable. This isn’t a matter of proving it wrong, but rather realizing that the methods are not scientific and of no use to reach conclusions. I spend my whole career reading and acting on scientific publications and in the past publishing and reviewing such papers. The majority of such publications can not be relied on to reach valid conclusions because they don’t abide by the stringent rules of objective science. This is just one more paper fit to line the bottom of a bird cage.

Joe Bastardi
July 29, 2021 9:31 am

The problem is there is so much we do not know about the oceans that the assumption being made here is one that while certainly deserves argument can not be etched in stone, Large scale cyclical events intersecting or increased hydrothermal events we can’t see can cause it. Here is another inconvenient fact. The warming, especially in the west pac, encourages a change in the GWO in which countering La Ninas can develop. How so. Lower pressures to the west increase easterlies to the east. COuntering that is low solar, which would encourage el Ninos and is why I am not a big fan of sudden cooling due to lower sunspots. Just where is all the heat from the last 200 years of higher sunspots stored? No one seems to want to look at the elephant in the room, that the set up for the last LIA had 200 years of next to no sunspot activity. But the article here does not adress the run up to the current warmer time. In addition there is no runaway warming and that should be brought up, One can see it in daytime max temperatures lagging well behind and again indicating the natural tendency of the system to fight back. . I suspect a very strong La Nina will show up about 2026 at the peak of the solar cycle and turn heads. I agree with the idea of the ocean being a driver,, but I think the assumption made here that its 99% due to human activities is arguable, if not a stretch, But what else can be said? . If someone came out and said the opposite its game set match for his or her career What bothers me is there is no mention of the obviously distorted warming that is taking place and that in a way, the warming is positive if there is more in the north, That means zonal potential energy ( contrast) for the extremes lessens. And since they refuse to quantify mixing ratios which would show this is not as bad as they portray, you cant really see it and certainly the public wont. In his defense. the cleaner air was brought up a big key also. Still, when we see the arctic WARMING in summer, that is when some alarm bells will go off with me, And there is no sign that is happening and in fact its quite the contrary. In the end, we should quit quantifying temperatures and move to wet bulbs, or better still saturation mixing ratios. Given they will expose the fact this is not the emergency that is being portrayed, that is not going to happen
Fascinating this study is out of Princeton, I bet none of them talked to Will Happer

John Tillman
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
July 29, 2021 11:04 am

Why would a grad student writing a paper on the behavior of infrared in the atmosphere want to talk to an old white guy who happens to be the world’s leading specialist on the behavior of light in the atmosphere, the guru of adaptive optics?

Anthony Banton
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
July 29, 2021 11:23 am

Still, when we see the arctic WARMING in summer, that is
when some alarm bells will go off with me, And there is no sign that is happening and in fact its quite the contrary.”

Would you not expect there to be little warming (in air) in summer, considering the vast sink to LH that the sea-ice provides.
You only have to look at the DMI to see that the Arctic sits at near Zero C through summer.
No coincidence that the vast majority is ice at zero C and absorbing LH of melting/fusion at the rate of 334 J per 1 g of ice at 0°C.

Or about 80x that required to raise water by 1C
and 334x that required to warm air by 1C

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
July 29, 2021 12:32 pm

With respect to how little we know about what goes on in the ocean, there is this recent revelation:

https://scitechdaily.com/undersea-volcano-discovered-near-christmas-island-that-looks-like-the-eye-of-sauron/

Dave Fair
Reply to  Joe Bastardi
July 29, 2021 11:19 pm

Joe, you should hire whoever edited your latest book to edit your comments. I had to re-read it a couple of times to get the full import of what you are saying. It would be great if you took that small comment and expanded it into a WUWT article, going into detail as to the background for your summary statements. The science and import behind wet bulb temperatures and saturation mixing ratios would be an education for many of us.

Jim Clarke
July 29, 2021 9:36 am

Why not use all of the available data? Starting in 2001 calls this study into question. It also assumes that changes in cloud cover are the result of human emissions, ignoring all other possible explanations for such changes. Thus it contains the same fundamental flaw as most climate research these days. It ignores the fact that the climate changes quite naturally all the time, without significant changes in TSI or volcanic activity. They continue to ignore ocean cycles as possible causes for change, when ocean cycles are the most obvious reason and are consistent over all time periods. Granted, no one gains power and wealth from such scientific understanding.

The ice cores clearly show that the Holocene is waning and that glaciation is likely in the next 2-4 thousand years. Temperatures will be naturally cooling during the interim, and no amount of CO2 will be able to reverse that trend. This paper, and 99% of climate change ‘science’ today is politically funded and driven, making it advocacy, not science. Success in the industry is simple…feed the false narrative and thrive. Do actual science and be forced to find other employment.

Trying to Play Nice
July 29, 2021 9:43 am

There is a 99% chance that these “scientists” have never done any science. Especially that idiot Shiv, Their Method of Research is “Computational simulation/modeling” which is not science.

July 29, 2021 9:49 am

I’m confused.

I though the science is settled. That mankind is making the earth boil and the scientific consensus mean’s it’s accepted scientific fact and beyond debate.

If that’s the case why are they still doing “studies” to try to prove it?

Gordon A. Dressler
July 29, 2021 9:55 am

Princeton University got it wrong in their very first paragraph with this statement:
“If Earth’s clouds, oceans, ice caps and land surfaces send as much energy back up to space as the sun shines down on us, then our planet maintains equilibrium.”

Because of the enormous heat capacity of Earth’s oceans as well as the latent heat associated with ice-water phase change, our planet never reaches—let alone—maintains equilibrium. There are internal sources/sinks (aka reservoirs) of energy that have time constants that likely exceed 100,000 years . . . interestingly, about the same as the cycle period for glacial-interglacial conditions that have occurred over the last million years or so.

It is nice to look at Kiehl & Trenberth-type diagrams of energy (actually power flux) flows within the Sun-Earth-deep space system with a net “accounting” that shows energy in = energy out, but such represent only a theoretical limit-case condition . . . one never reached in reality. More specifically, K-T-type diagrams and associated “budgets” DO NOT consider flows into and out of energy reservoirs that exist on Earth, thereby enabling misleading steady state calculations.

As but one example, the worlds oceans below the average depth of the deep-end-of-the-thermocline (about 1000m, or 3300 ft; see https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/thermocline.html ), are still in the process of warming up from the last glacial period which ended about 12,000 years ago.

I cannot quantify what errors are introduced by leaving “reservoir flows” (my terminology) out of the assumed equilibrium calculations, but I would not be surprised if these actually lead to 10-20% differences between assumptions and reality in terms of the planet having energy equilibrium when averaged over any 100 year or longer interval.

ResourceGuy
July 29, 2021 9:55 am

It depends on what the modeler excludes from the system.

TonyG
July 29, 2021 10:00 am

METHOD OF RESEARCH
Computational simulation/modeling

Ok then.

Last edited 1 month ago by TonyG
July 29, 2021 10:33 am

“The observed changes might be a fluke — just natural variation.”
You got it

July 29, 2021 10:35 am

A scientist was being interviewed on BBC this week who admitted a trade secret: when you hear “1 %” mentioned as a probability, it means they don’t really have a clue so it’s a default guess based on a hunch. Sounds about right.

Clyde Spencer
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
July 29, 2021 12:36 pm

If you are going to round off to the nearest percent, one can’t get below 1%!

The Dark Lord
July 29, 2021 10:46 am

there is no imbalance … solar energy in = radiated energy out … insulation (GHG) do not stop energy movement … they slow it down is all … it still moves …

Dave Fair
Reply to  The Dark Lord
July 29, 2021 4:59 pm

This study says differently. CO2 impacts aerosols and clouds; it doesn’t do the old GHG insulation. Its a brave new world.

MarkW
July 29, 2021 10:58 am

Biden’s pick to run the Bureau of Land Management has called on Biden to wage a war on over population in order to save the environment.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tracy-stone-manning-wage-war-overpopulation

For some reason, organizations with the initials BLM seem to attract the biggest nut jobs.

Richard Page
Reply to  MarkW
July 29, 2021 1:30 pm

Oh so that’s what taking the knee is all about – it’s so they’ll hit the guy standing behind you!

Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 11:18 am

(Bright white sea ice reflects much more sunlight than sea water, so as sea ice melts, Earth is becoming less reflective.)

Sunlight is much weaker at the poles than it is in the tropics as a result of the footprint being spread out over a larger area, and having a long slant range through the atmosphere, affording more scattering and absorption before reaching the surface. Thus, forcing from insolation is much subdued.

More PhDs that have not heard of Fresnel’s equation for reflectance, and probably have never taken a physical geography class. They also appear to not have heard of bi-directional reflectance distribution functions (BRDF).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/12/why-albedo-is-the-wrong-measure-of-reflectivity-for-modeling-climate/

If modelers are unaware of basics of light transmission and reflectance, then they can’t be expected to develop computer models that will come close to reality.

How is it that they are confident that there is only a 1% probability of natural variation when their TEEI is 0.4 ± 0.2 Wm^−2 decade^−1? That is, they are dealing with only one (justifiable!) significant figure that has an uncertainty of ±50% of the nominal best estimate! Such poor experimental results for a college freshman in a beginning washout-physics course would probably result in a grade of “F,” even today.

Last edited 1 month ago by Clyde Spencer
July 29, 2021 11:55 am

What is earth’s in-out IR flux supposed to look like in the absence of greenhouse warming? Rough or smooth – how much variation and on what scales? Is there a null hypothesis to compare against? I think not.

TallDave
July 29, 2021 12:04 pm

“In addition, the Princeton and GFDL researchers noted that oceans store 90% of this excess heat.”

lol the hydrosphere is ~300x the mass of the atmosphere, the average temperature has barely changed enough to measure

if the politics on this topic were reversed, instead of demanding nonsensical attempts to reduce emissions by making energy more expensive in rich countries which would have no measurable impact on temperatures even if ECS>2 (and we already know it isn’t) they’d be crowing over the generally improved state of Earth relative to a similar cooling cycle

Last edited 1 month ago by TallDave
Captain climate
July 29, 2021 12:54 pm

“ Using climate model simulations, we show that it is exceptionally unlikely (<1% probability) that this trend can be explained by internal variability. ”

We keep pretending our models are representations of the planet’s climate. How does this crap get past peer review?

Dave Fair
Reply to  Captain climate
July 29, 2021 5:04 pm

CliSciFi GCMs’ average global temperature vary by 3 C. Each model must have its own unique physics; just modeling evaporation would vary by 3C.

Captain climate
July 29, 2021 12:58 pm

We know none of the systems that contribute to the total energy imbalance to the precision that we claim to know the total top of the atmosphere imbalance. All you have to do is demonstrate one system that climate models do badly and just entire absurd argument collapses. Like snowcover. Can models forecast snowcover? No? Well then your climate simulations don’t tell you dick about what CO2 forcing is doing to contribute to the total imbalance.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Captain climate
July 29, 2021 5:06 pm

The lack of a tropical tropospheric hot spot invalidates most all the UN IPCC CliSciFi models. I understand the CMIP6 models add more hot spots to the troposphere outside the tropics.

Ted
July 29, 2021 1:40 pm

They used models that assumed changes in GHG would be the primary cause of changes in RF, and that natural variations were small. In a shocking twist they found that recent changes in RF were larger than could be explained by the assumed to be small natural variation.

Never mind that natural variation caused faster warming just a few hundred years ago, apparently back then the ocean didn’t bother to heat up due to RF changes. Or that the models they used failed to track temperature changes during the same time period as the study.

Nicholas McGinley
July 29, 2021 2:25 pm

I can barely force myself to read this pack of obvious lies, when right at the get go we have what we all know are made up facts, that do not coincide with reality in any significant way!
I mean, look here:
“…higher temperatures, rising sea levels, floods, droughts, more powerful blizzards and hurricanes, and deadlier extreme events.”

None of those things are true.
All are demonstrably false.

By my calculations, there is a 0.000% chance that any result obtained by this guy and/or any of his pack of kindred spirit lying liars, has any shred of credibility or actual scientific value, whatsoever

Last edited 1 month ago by Nicholas McGinley
commieBob
July 29, 2021 4:00 pm

As I write this there are 214 comments so I’m expecting it to be ignored. Oh well.

There is one human effect on the local climate which is mostly ignored by both sides of the CAGW debate and that is land use. Pielke Sr. used to be regularly featured on WUWT.

If you take land use into account, the apparent effect of CO2 is reduced by as much as half. If you take atmospheric and oceanic circulation into account, the apparent greenhouse effect is reduced by as much as a half. If you take geometry into account, the back radiation from the upper atmosphere is drastically reduced.

Any climate modeling that doesn’t account for factors like those above and only considers CO2 is almost certainly in error.

Anyway, folks should be paying more attention to land use.

Dave Fair
Reply to  commieBob
July 29, 2021 11:27 pm

Wow! 1 CO2 effect minus 1/2 CO2 effect minus 1/2 CO2 effect minus ? back radiation reduction equals a negative CO2 effect.

commieBob
Reply to  Dave Fair
July 30, 2021 1:30 am

If you try to calculate the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) to CO2 based on the observed temperature trend, and you don’t take into account all the possible sources of error, your calculation will be wrong.

Never forget that the predominant greenhouse gas is water vapor.

What about the evidence that atmospheric CO2 lags temperature?

Could CO2 have a negative effect on temperature? You could dream up a theory to explain that.

Also never forget that the whole CAGW schtick depends on a posited positive feedback where more CO2 causes more water vapor and we get runaway global warming. The positive feedback analysis is misapplied and done wrong.

So, could the ECS actually be negative? Given the complexity of the climate system, that possibility can’t be totally ignored. Anyway, if you add up the probabilities of all the worst case errors you can easily get an unphysical result.

Dave Fair
Reply to  commieBob
July 31, 2021 11:40 am

Not to worry, Bob! A grad student has overturned the old CliSciFi “water vapor enhances CO2 warming” meme. One needs to keep up with the current dogma, you know. Almost as good as grad student Mann overturning the MWP and “hiding the decline.” And CliSciFi still supports Mannian “science.”

J Mac
July 29, 2021 4:04 pm

These folks really lack understanding of error ranges or statistics.