A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
Russellsays
@SecularAnimist
@Susan Anderson
I am not some kind of concern troll whatever that may be, and if you had read my post more carefully you should realize that. I have never heard of Fred Pearce, and heard about the grey literature business because of Google news like many people which linked to many articles on the matter. Here is one, but there were many that said similar things.
I am talking how I expect the general public to see this, not people that follow the twists and turns closely. The public from what I see think there was a scandal regarding grey literature, and the immediate reaction of them seeing headlines like this will be to lose respect for the IPCC. They aren’t going to read the fine print about how grey literature will be vetted etc. Also I know for a fact that some “skeptics” are overjoyed at the IPCC’s decision.
My point was not to make some kind of attack on the credibility of the IPCC as it is at present, but to point out that this policy will cause it to loose the respect of the public, whether that is deserved or not.
If it does make mistakes, then to be impartial this site needs to point them out the same as it would for mistakes made anywhere else and not appear to try and defend it.
Yes it would help to have more representation worldwide, but it has been reported as if there are some enforced quotas at the expense of science. Once again, this is the concern of the general public from what I see, not people already firmly on one side or the other. So if these perceptions are not true, then write something explaining why.
This is regarded as an important issue by many people, so perhaps RC should write an article about it.
simon abingdonsays
#356 Susan Anderson
“Today at breakfast … ” Extraordinary. You can’t help wondering.
simon abingdonsays
The Times today reports that “the Royal Society of Chemistry has offered a £1,000 prize to anyone who can say why hot water freezes faster than cold.”
Should be a breeze for climate science.
simon abingdonsays
#330 MARodger “What you referred to @303 was “Robert Brown’s latest post” on WUWT without any hint as to its content”.
On the contrary I identified it unambiguously as “Robert Brown’s latest post (June 24 2012 at 10.30 pm)”. Not hard to find. Your comment about my not having “the decency to link to it” is just wrong. As well as being ad hom your saying that “Brown is a verbose old duffer” may be simply unfair as well as unkind. Had you confined your comments to substance I might not have misjudged you. If I did I apologise.
“Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time – and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.”
vukcevicsays
Currently I am completing an article which will precisely define causes of the climate oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere, I used name Geo-Solar cycle http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Southern Hemisphere’s response is affected by the Circumpolar current’s temperature wave, which interpolate within the GS cycle, in addition to the inertia of larger oceanic mass damping the natural oscillations. Any serious analysis should consider giving a degree of disengagement between the hemispheres
Benjaminsays
I got two questions :
1/ The Mann08 you show has no tree rings but still has Tijlander lake sediments proxy, right ?
2/ On the Mann08 graph, the post 1900 part is only represented with instrumental record. Is there a version of this graph without the instrumental record but with the proxies used all the way to 2000, like on Jan Esper’s graph ?
I have a friend who keeps cattle and grows willow for biomass.
If total farm emissions were charged at a reasonable carbon price, he would find it more profitable to cut the emissions from his farm by switching his cattle farming to grow more willow.
Avoiding the respiration of the cattle would be part of his financial gain and our environmental gain.
But the cattle are beautiful!
Dan H.says
Unsettled,
I hope you are not referring to the misinterpretations and insults as Gavin’s way of “dealing” with me. Arguing about the definition of “rapid” is rather Clintonistic, as decelleration definitely does not conform to “rapid” acceleration. Look over the 20-year UC dataset again. The decelleration of the past ten years exceeds the acceleration of the previous ten.
Dan H.says
Rick and Craig,
Yes, Antarctica is isolated, and has not experienced the global warming of the past 50 years.
While the temperature has followed the rise and fall of the remainder of the globe during the previous interglacials, the last time Antartica was ice-free was several million years ago (see the real climate article on the Miocene). This was prior to the recent ice age cycle.
During the last interglacial, the temperature was ~1-3C warmer than this interglacial. Evidence suggest that melting only occurred along the fringes (Antarctic peninsul, etc.). East Antarctica has continuously accumulated ice. Keep in mind that the average temperature in the middle of the East Antarctic ice sheet is ~-50. By the time the temperature increases sufficiently to melt this ice sheet appreciably, the rest of the planet will be toast.
Dan H.says
Ray,
I have to side with Ian on this one. Drought was more severe in the 1930s than today. High temperatures were more extreme than today (there was even some extreme cold too). Hurricane activity in the 1930s was similar to the 2000s. How anomolous can the 2000s be if similarities occurred seven decades prior?
Iansays
There are too many hypotheticals in comment #103. Consequently it is not possible to make a realistic assessment of the postulated scenarios. For example let us assume the, entirely unknown, conditions affecting extreme weather events in the 1930s, are increased in magnitude today. Should this be the case, one could expect the number of extreme weather events today might be comparable to or greater than those seen in the 1930s. Obviously as these conditions are unknown it is impossible to state that CO2 does or does not have an additional effect. It could well just be a natural variation in these conditions. For instance let us assume that CO2 actually ameliorates these conditions and as these conditions are unknown this is at least a tenable hypothesis. One might expect the number of extreme weather events to be less than in the 1930s. However let us now assume that human activities such as land clearing, exacerbate these natural conditions. This might lead to an increase in the number of extreme weather events totally separate from the putative effects of CO2 on these unknown natural conditions. So let us now assume increased CO2 ameliorates and land clearing exacerbates these natural conditions to the same extent. One then might expect the number of extreme weather events now to be similar to those in the 1930s. As I’ve said, it is not possible to determine the effects of CO2 or land clearing or anything else on the effect on extreme weather events of natural conditions that are entirely unknown.
Iansays
I am sorry but I forgot to note that Dr Christy supplies a lot of data to illustrate the points he makes. It is inconceivable that these data are manufactured or fictitious so one must assume that the points he makes are based on facts that can be readily checked by others. From these data it does appear the 1930s had a larger number of extreme events than succeeding decades even though CO2 levels were steadily climbing during these decades. Perhaps, as I’ve suggested above (rather tongue in cheek I must admit), increased CO2 really might ameliorate the unknown natural conditions causing the extreme weather events in the 1930s
Jack Maloneysays
In the 11,000+ year natural progression of warming from the last Ice Age to the present, shouldn’t one expect high temperature records, on average, to be broken on a yearly basis, and to far outnumber low records?
Iansays
Thanks for the various responses. I’d hate you to think I was running away from the discussion but my reply to Hank Roberts (103) stating his comments were too full of hypotheticals followed by why this was so was deemed unsuitable for publication. Why I have no idea as it wasn’t abusive or off topic. I guess my time in the sun on this blog is over.
Dan H.says
Unsettled,
I do not think Ian’s point was to say that these events cannot occur naturally, but rather that recent events are mimicked by those that occurred in the past. The claim has been made by some that the recent events are “unprecedented.” However, the data clearly shows that there are not. That does not translate to CO2 has no effect, but rather, that the effect is not more extreme than observed previosuly. That does not say that a combination of natural and manmade effects could exceed those of the past. The decade of the 30s is not any more “cherrypicked,” than that of the 2000s.
Since the scientific community already knows this (per your previous post), then it should come as no shock that the previous decade has mimicked the past. I do not understand why so many are rushing to deny this.
Iansays
Final comment. Unsettled Scientist you state “I have a feeling you’re just playing a semantical game and aren’t really interested in learning how we are causing the climate to change right now” Actually I am interested but as a scientist in an entirely different field, biochemistry and molecular biology, I find the debate between the proponents and opponents of CAGW so snide and rancorous that it is difficult to to distinguish fact from opinion. Both sides of the debate seem to resort to ad hominems, just look at the comments to me here, which is so so totally different from the situation in other branches of science where those that disagree are at least civilised. In fairness I also get ad hominems at WUWT if I post something with which the readers of that blog disagree. Perhaps the attitudes of both sides is responsible, at least in part, for the declining interest in CAGW that is occurring globally not just in the US. Incidentally I live Australia
Iansays
I gave a signing off comment for this particular topic noting that the debate on climate science from proponents and opponents is snide and rancorous. I also said that ad hominem attacks proliferate on both sides and said that comments to me on this particular post exemplified this. I also said that this rancour may well ahev been the reason that globally the public are turning away from CAGW However the moderator axed the comment whilst allowing the somewhat vulgar comments from Ron R through. Why am I not surprised
Dan H.says
Ian,
I agree totally with your post beginning with final comment. People on the extreme ends of the climate debate often resort to just these types of attacks in order to move the argument away from the actual science. It is nice to see a refreshing voice.
Armandosays
Yo Gavin,
“on how little actually changed”
you’re right: the models will still be wrong.
Boblsays
Patrick,
Thank you for the long detailed response. There seems to be a common misconception here confusing feedback and gain.
WRT Solar power, my point is simply exposing the low power density of a solar installation capable of replacing baseload capacity. Of the order of 7 Watt per square meter. Compare that with the energy density (per square meter) of your local coal fired power station. Not only that, taking into account embodied energy makes the equation much much worse. I think this is fatal for Solar.
WRT your discussion on feedback the key for me is this statement
the non-Planck feedbacks to be positive and exceed the Planck response in magnitude and The equilibrium climate sensitivity is the negative inverse of the sum of all feedbacks
Now if you consider the feedback components one by one, according to their physical mechanisms and the lags inherent in them (delay between output and feedback, – thermal capacity/inertia) What is the maximum value of constructive reinforcement that can happen, and is that consistent with the observation that climate is remarkably stable. If the loop gain reaches 1 even transiently, then the system would become unstable and oscillate or drive to energy saturation.
What stops this happening, how is it that the system is able to ever cool? There is something wrong here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. By the way, I calculate CO2 energy saturation at +5.2 degrees for 1ATM which is hardly Venus.
Further, in some cases it aught to be possible to experimentally exclude some feedback mechanisms altogether and the test the feedbacks mechanism by mechanism in order to verify the assumed total gain in real-world experiments. Nothing I read goes to this at all.
The high feedback gains required in my mind still contraindicate the models feasibility.
Boblsays
Patrick
I omitted a mechanism that would fit the current world view. Co2 warming is very near energy saturation, it could be that the gain is in fact an inverse function of temperature, and that small increases in temperature quickly reduce the gain. This is evident in equatorial temperature caps, where temperatures above a certain cap result in thunderstorms. This isn’t however consistent with the idea that Co2 warming can continue forever. This Hypothesis would place a strict cap on the amount of warming that can occur below the theoretical energy saturation level of +5.2 degrees.
Dan H.says
Unsettled,
Just because the statment says that the natural component is certain, does not imply that the human is also certain. These are not mutually exclusive events. If you would read what others are saying about the dust bowl, you may come to a better understanding. In the same light, just because human cause have been shown for the recent changes, does not imply that the natural component is absent. Maybe that is why so many seem to think they know everything; they feel it must be one or the other, and if one is true, the other must be false. Very bad science.
Dan H.says
Whit,
Interesting analogy. While I am sure there is more that one environmentalist out there who would jump on any theory that would paint Exxon as the bad guy, I an bit sure that most would. Granted, there are always those who look for doomsday scenarios, and others who view the world through rose-colored glasses. This is especially true, when there is sufficient uncertainty in the results to allow for other interpretations.
Iansays
In view of the comments above, I am treading on eggs when writing this. As mentioned I have much to learn but today’s editorial in the New York Times today exemplifies the confusion with which those who are not climate scientists have to contend. The editorial reports some fairly trenchant criticism of the conclusions drawn by Dr Hansen in his most recent paper in PNAS. As Dr Hansen has a very high profile in Climate Science are the critics displaying excessive temerity in questioning such a guru or are they correct? Although Dr Weaver agrees with Dr Hansen others obviously do not. Is the paper “a muddle” and “not backed by persuasive evidence” as Dr Claudia Tibaldi contends or are her claims incorrect? Does Dr Hansen exaggerate the connection between global warming and weather extremes as is claimed by Dr Hoerling? Is Dr Hoerling’s claim that the paper is not “a serious science paper” correct? Certainly one surely could not quibble with his final comment that “perception is not a science”. Could one? Although articles such as this in the scientific literature typify the type of debate scientists hold on a variety of topics, their publication in the MSM, where the majority of readers probably are not scientists, could give the impression that the science of climate change might not be settled just yet.
dingibilysays
@Chris #74
“Anyone who dismisses PIOMAS in the terms you state is talking ‘carp’.”
I did not mean to dismiss PIOMAS. Rather, I was soliciting the informed opinion as to what will be the resolution of the different rates of decline of volume and area/extent. Either the latter will start to collapse soon or the former will start bottoming out before hitting zero. I have no idea. There are differing views. Yours is quite persuasive. My only instinct on this is that if the apparent volume decline is correct, maybe we should have seen a sharper recent decline of area/extent already. How, for example, do we get a “virtually complete annihilation of grid boxes reporting thick ice” without a considerable loss of thin ice as well. Maybe it’s the thin ice on the periphery that is disappearing and the thick ice is spreading out to fill in, having lost its constraining border. That would make some sense. Anyway, exciting times. Thanks for the response.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost
dingibilysays
@Chris #74,
“Anyone who dismisses PIOMAS in the terms you state is talking ‘carp’.”
I did not mean to dismiss PIOMAS, I simply wanted to solicit views on how the differing rates of volume decline and area/extent decline will be resolved. Will we see the first ice-free day in 6y or 30? Who will blink first? I’m guessing it will be in the middle. But we still see major studies leading to headlines like, “Scientists Predict Ice-Free Arctic by 2070,” and lots of other weighty commentary that it’s decades away. (Was that from MIT?) They’re talking a single ice-free day. No mention of plummeting PIOMAS. Are they even aware of it? Do they consider it nonsense? I’d like to know. The consensus here seems to be that PIOMAS is legit, or approximately so. Cool. What will the models be predicting when the ice is gone? Can’t wait.
Here’s a corrected link to previously cited Ice Plots.
Dan H.says
Unsettled,
I should have expected nothing less. Completely disregard the conclusions of the report in favor of one cherry-picked data point, which fits your own viewpoint. The report also shows that in-situ observations showed that 2009 was cloder than the 20th century average. But does that have any more meaning that your statement. As Susans says, “your reckless disregard for the truth is exceptional.”
Keith Woollardsays
Jeffrey @2,
Insurance is the worst metaphor. Using that logic, we must all believe in God(s)
Keith Woollardsays
Let me word this differently and see if I can avoid the Bore Hole.
Jeffrey @ #2, there is a real danger in promoting the insurance metaphor. There are any number of counter arguments to that logic. For example, I do not believe in a god, I do admit however that I may be wrong, and the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic (i.e. eternal damnation). So even though the chances of me being wrong are 1 in 1,000,000 the insurance arument means that I should still believe.
The answer is not insurance, it is finding the truth
Jet Halonsays
Im a a many year loyal reader of Real Climate. This is my first comment.
Mike, I’ve always been fascinated with your work and look forward to your future research.
I appreciate your review of Romm and “communicating”.
I respectfully disagree with your advice.
Right know I think scientists need eloquence. They should not “exaggerate”, (has that worked in the past?) Describing the climate as being on” steroids” has especially bad connotations.Insurane model doesn’t work either. If it did Geico and Progressive should stop advertising.
I agree with with Tamino- “now is the time for unity”.
Sad comments by people like Jeffrey Davis, “Nuremberg Trials” Do these people try to add or simply try be members of a club?
jet
Mayburysays
I’m looking for a different objective, I don’t want to be persuaded but rather informed. I’ve heard a lot of repetition but not much information. To communicate with me please give me the information and sound logic.
Our education system is all about teaching us to learn but not to think.
Lets have a revolution of thinking not a bombardment of being told what to think.
Tietjan berelulsays
What is important for climate scientists is to know who their audience is.
I have been following the global warming debate for a while now, and it is still not clear to me what alarmists want from those who disagree with them, other than see terrible things happen to them. If you want them reduce their carbon footprint, why not come up with other reasons to do that (health, financial, fun etc). It surprises me that alarmists still think people can be insulted into compliance.
Im sure that if i wanted to know the color of a black board is and asked Marc Morano, hed buy me a beer and tell me its white, and if i were to ask a climate scientist, hed make me sell my house and pimp out my wife for the answer, and then only tell me that Morano is lying and sponsored by the beer industry.
Normansays
109 prokaryotes
Have you been to Roy Spencer’s blog lately? John Christy graphs the Tmax and Tmin temps for the US over the last 80 years. The Tmin temps records has been increasing but is now up to the level it had been in the 1930’s.
Yes it is going up, will it continue to go up? Data not yet available. I think it would depend upon how much more the globe will warm. Lots of variations in that prediction.
Ray Ladbury @47
With respect the examples that you site are not what I’m talking about. They are separate pieces of research with their own engineering and marketing. What we are talking about is your product of AGW and climate change which those products you site are dependant on.
The piece I site is as follows:
“Product engineering usually entails activity dealing with issues of cost, producibility, quality, performance, reliability, serviceability and user features.”
I believe that’s the focus needed to promote your theories and get them adopted more widely. If your interested I can give some of my professional opinions related to your specific product.
I do think some of the comments on this article have shown how NOT to communicate, as Eric makes clear earlier:
“….This sort of talk simply helps convince others that those on the side of taking the climate change risk seriously are crazy ideologues. Comments of this sort tend to make me agree with them. Enough.–eric]”
I guess this is the bloggers dilemma, anybody can read the comments beneath an article, so do you delete them or respond? (like Eric responded) especially if the comments are obviously on the same ’side’ (albeit at a more extreme)
If the comments are a little ‘off the wall’, shall we say, like ‘criminality’ or ‘Nuremburg’ then you (the author or blog) may/will by some end up being judged by them. Unfairly.
ie some responses seem to communicate totally negatively to a wider audience that read Realclimate, but may not comment much, ie criminality and assets taken..
assets may only be siezed legally, only if a ‘crime’ (ie actual legal definition, not a ‘moral’ one) has happened,trial, etc and as for comments like Nuremburg trials that sort of rhetoric really does not help.
I know many think that a climate catastrophy is on the horizon and the Nuremburg analogy has been used many times and for example Mark Lynas, who is on the Realclimate blog role said the following a while back (echoing Hari & Monbiot)
Lynas (2006)
“I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it.”
yet a number of years later Mark Lynas had this to say
Lynas (2011)
“That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been naively led astray by him. Well, if the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’.”
Mark has gone on to say that ‘Deniers Halls of Shame’ are shameful, Mark was on the advisory board of one such groups.
Lynas (2011)
“…Barry, you are right that the ‘Sceptics Hall of Shame’ is itself shameful – I wonder if I can appear on it now whilst still being a board member of the Campaign Against Climate Change (in all honesty I’d forgotten that I was on the board – I never have anything to do with them!).
I’ve checked and I’m still on the RealClimate blogroll… long may it continue!
Mark”
hopefully the more silly rhetoric can be toned down, and the community can take a lead in that and a more civil conversation can result (as eric has done)
Mark and I had lunch a while back, presumably not something one does if you think they are morally comparable holocaust denial.
(comment originally said spam – so have removed some urls to the quotes – google should find them – ie more than 2 urls, that may have cased the problem)
Tom Scharfsays
The topic of whether squishy terms like “suggest” should be used speaks directly to the overstatement of certainty in the public sphere of climate science. Polls have shown that the public already believes the consequences of AGW has been overstated.
Certainly Hansen can state his opinion on the certainty of his own results. It crosses the line when he makes definitive (not conditional) alarmist statements that infer that this is the consensus state of the science itself. His position at NASA allows him to speak from authority on this.
It is my opinion that although this is demonstrably useful as a short term strategy (media ambush, headline seeking), it backfires in the long term with respect to credibility for climate science. This is because a person of high authority can be easily refuted by opponents (i.e. is this the best you got?).
It is a very simple assertion that when claims of doom fail to materialize that subsequent claims will be taken with less regard.
I respect that Hansen truly believes in his cause, and he backs that up with more realistic proposals than most (large scale conversion to nuclear power, etc.). I just don’t think overstating certainty and alarmism is the path to progress that requires support from both sides of the aisle.
So what’s my solution? Cede the possibility of short term policy action as unwinnable for now, and treat this fight like a marathon, not a sprint. Support long term conversion to economically viable low carbon solutions. Rebuild credibility along the way, the alarmists are hurting you more than helping you.
johne37179says
I remember working on the IGY data back in the early ’60s. The study of climate change throughout the Pleistocene was a ‘hot’ topic way back then. I find it disturbing in all the hype about recent warming that people concentrate on a couple so centuries worth of weather data rather than hundreds of thousands or millions of years worth of climate data. When this current warming is put in the larger context it is not at all remarkable. There have been a number of periods like this throughout the recent earth history and much warmer periods if you go back a ways (geologically speaking).
PJsays
“I cut off the graph at 500 A.D. so that the instrumental data wouldn’t be too squished to the right on the graphs.”
Poop Eric, poop.
[Response:With all due respect, all the data are available on line, and I provided the link. Plot the graph yourself if you want to do something different with it. –eric]
Mike Kennysays
As soon as you invoke the word “Denial” or “Denialism” etc. you loose the argument due to Godwin’s Law.
Dan H.says
Good point Chris. Previously, many have pointed to the ratio of record highs to record lows in the past decade as evidence of more extremes, without realizing that the ratio is largely driven by the decrease in record lows. In fact, earlier decades have seen a greater abundance of record highs than recently, but were offset by a large occurrance of record lows. This would show a naroowing of the temperatre range recently, resulting in an overall decrease in temperature extremes.
simon abingdonsays
#142 sidd
Understanding that CO2 blocks IR requires an understanding of how. Comprehending the isotopic signature of fossil fuel loading of the air requires an understanding of how. Grasping that CO2 warming leads to water vapor feedback requires an understanding of how. Seeing that applying a substantial fraction of a watt in radiative imbalance to every last square meter of the world will heat it up requires an understanding of how.
Or you can just accept that others know best. (Like, you might say, fingers crossed).
Papy Boomersays
“Of course, the ozone hole didn’t exist before the 1970s,…”
Hum! How could you be so sure of that? Measurements started only in the 1980’s and the precision was not so good. Today, numerous studies found that cold temperatures in the high atmosphere were responsible for that. That is why the cold atmosphere over the Arctic created one of the rarely seen ozone hole in 2011 (if my memory is exact).
datu pukisays
I noticed you said west antarctic, which suggests an east/west division. how can that be? the continent is basically round with “comma” like peninsula. if you have to partition it would it not make more sense to either refer to the peninsula side or the large round side… or better yet the american side/AUSNZ side/afirican Side. The cold war was over 20 years ago.
simon abingdonsays
#148 Radge Havers
“But it’s enough to see that AGW is real and serious”
But it’s not necessarily A(GW) and not necessarily serious.
So it (your little understanding) is not enough to see what you think you see, after all.
Girmasays
What is the most important climate condition to keep tabs on?
Eek – chartjunk alert! Please, stick to real scientific graphics, with 0 on the y-axis, units of measure, etc., and leave the suggestive pictures to USA Today.
The most important indicators of climate are:
1. The longest accurate temperature series (Central England) which shows 20th century warming is far from unprecedented
2. global rainfall, which being far simpler than temperature is more accurate and less subject to measurement problems than temperature and being directly related to global heat transfer should be a good indicator of problems but shows no increase
3. The trend of extreme weather events – which show no trend
4. Solar activity which has more science backing it that any of this nonsense about feedbacks.
Ken Lambertsays
The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.
Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain equal to 0.7%.
This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.
Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?
[Response: Could someone explain why we care about that canary who only breathes 4% of the air a person does? Mysteries abound…. – gavin]
vukcevicsays
Response: The AMO, as we have shown in numerous articles, has little influence on global (or even Northern Hemisphere) average temperature. It’s largely a zero sum game because it mostly associated with changes in the transport of heat between regions.
Hi Dr. Mann
According to what I find
– Zero sum game
yes across 9-10 or 64-5 years, but necessarily not in between, unless a symmetrical section is selected
– changes in the transport of heat between regions
The SST changes trend direction almost simultaneously (within 1-2 years, across most of the North Atlantic, while e.g. subpolar gyre has cycle of about two decades. It is more likely that the AMOscillations are responsible for transport of heat in the vertical direction (from surface downwards) and it can be adequately represented as an amplification system (see link below)
– has little influence on global (or even Northern Hemisphere)
The N.H. Tav (detrended) and the AMO are inextricably linked together (with high uncertainty of order of precedence) as I show here: http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Since the ‘AMO’ type oscillations are detectable in other areas of the globe, the oscillations are most likely globally generated, but due the North Atlantic’s specific properties, their presence there is more evident.
@SecularAnimist
@Susan Anderson
I am not some kind of concern troll whatever that may be, and if you had read my post more carefully you should realize that. I have never heard of Fred Pearce, and heard about the grey literature business because of Google news like many people which linked to many articles on the matter. Here is one, but there were many that said similar things.
http://zeenews.india.com/news/rio-summit-2012/climate-panel-slammed-for-embracing-controversial-grey-literature_782787.html
I am talking how I expect the general public to see this, not people that follow the twists and turns closely. The public from what I see think there was a scandal regarding grey literature, and the immediate reaction of them seeing headlines like this will be to lose respect for the IPCC. They aren’t going to read the fine print about how grey literature will be vetted etc. Also I know for a fact that some “skeptics” are overjoyed at the IPCC’s decision.
My point was not to make some kind of attack on the credibility of the IPCC as it is at present, but to point out that this policy will cause it to loose the respect of the public, whether that is deserved or not.
If it does make mistakes, then to be impartial this site needs to point them out the same as it would for mistakes made anywhere else and not appear to try and defend it.
Yes it would help to have more representation worldwide, but it has been reported as if there are some enforced quotas at the expense of science. Once again, this is the concern of the general public from what I see, not people already firmly on one side or the other. So if these perceptions are not true, then write something explaining why.
This is regarded as an important issue by many people, so perhaps RC should write an article about it.
#356 Susan Anderson
“Today at breakfast … ” Extraordinary. You can’t help wondering.
The Times today reports that “the Royal Society of Chemistry has offered a £1,000 prize to anyone who can say why hot water freezes faster than cold.”
Should be a breeze for climate science.
#330 MARodger “What you referred to @303 was “Robert Brown’s latest post” on WUWT without any hint as to its content”.
On the contrary I identified it unambiguously as “Robert Brown’s latest post (June 24 2012 at 10.30 pm)”. Not hard to find. Your comment about my not having “the decency to link to it” is just wrong. As well as being ad hom your saying that “Brown is a verbose old duffer” may be simply unfair as well as unkind. Had you confined your comments to substance I might not have misjudged you. If I did I apologise.
Great News!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/25/antarctic_ice_not_melting/
“Twenty-year-old models which have suggested serious ice loss in the eastern Antarctic have been compared with reality for the first time – and found to be wrong, so much so that it now appears that no ice is being lost at all.”
Currently I am completing an article which will precisely define causes of the climate oscillations in the Northern Hemisphere, I used name Geo-Solar cycle
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Southern Hemisphere’s response is affected by the Circumpolar current’s temperature wave, which interpolate within the GS cycle, in addition to the inertia of larger oceanic mass damping the natural oscillations. Any serious analysis should consider giving a degree of disengagement between the hemispheres
I got two questions :
1/ The Mann08 you show has no tree rings but still has Tijlander lake sediments proxy, right ?
2/ On the Mann08 graph, the post 1900 part is only represented with instrumental record. Is there a version of this graph without the instrumental record but with the proxies used all the way to 2000, like on Jan Esper’s graph ?
Thanks.
I have a friend who keeps cattle and grows willow for biomass.
If total farm emissions were charged at a reasonable carbon price, he would find it more profitable to cut the emissions from his farm by switching his cattle farming to grow more willow.
Avoiding the respiration of the cattle would be part of his financial gain and our environmental gain.
But the cattle are beautiful!
Unsettled,
I hope you are not referring to the misinterpretations and insults as Gavin’s way of “dealing” with me. Arguing about the definition of “rapid” is rather Clintonistic, as decelleration definitely does not conform to “rapid” acceleration. Look over the 20-year UC dataset again. The decelleration of the past ten years exceeds the acceleration of the previous ten.
Rick and Craig,
Yes, Antarctica is isolated, and has not experienced the global warming of the past 50 years.
http://www.unis.no/35_staff/staff_webpages/geology/ole_humlum/AntarcticTemperatureChanges.htm
While the temperature has followed the rise and fall of the remainder of the globe during the previous interglacials, the last time Antartica was ice-free was several million years ago (see the real climate article on the Miocene). This was prior to the recent ice age cycle.
During the last interglacial, the temperature was ~1-3C warmer than this interglacial. Evidence suggest that melting only occurred along the fringes (Antarctic peninsul, etc.). East Antarctica has continuously accumulated ice. Keep in mind that the average temperature in the middle of the East Antarctic ice sheet is ~-50. By the time the temperature increases sufficiently to melt this ice sheet appreciably, the rest of the planet will be toast.
Ray,
I have to side with Ian on this one. Drought was more severe in the 1930s than today. High temperatures were more extreme than today (there was even some extreme cold too). Hurricane activity in the 1930s was similar to the 2000s. How anomolous can the 2000s be if similarities occurred seven decades prior?
There are too many hypotheticals in comment #103. Consequently it is not possible to make a realistic assessment of the postulated scenarios. For example let us assume the, entirely unknown, conditions affecting extreme weather events in the 1930s, are increased in magnitude today. Should this be the case, one could expect the number of extreme weather events today might be comparable to or greater than those seen in the 1930s. Obviously as these conditions are unknown it is impossible to state that CO2 does or does not have an additional effect. It could well just be a natural variation in these conditions. For instance let us assume that CO2 actually ameliorates these conditions and as these conditions are unknown this is at least a tenable hypothesis. One might expect the number of extreme weather events to be less than in the 1930s. However let us now assume that human activities such as land clearing, exacerbate these natural conditions. This might lead to an increase in the number of extreme weather events totally separate from the putative effects of CO2 on these unknown natural conditions. So let us now assume increased CO2 ameliorates and land clearing exacerbates these natural conditions to the same extent. One then might expect the number of extreme weather events now to be similar to those in the 1930s. As I’ve said, it is not possible to determine the effects of CO2 or land clearing or anything else on the effect on extreme weather events of natural conditions that are entirely unknown.
I am sorry but I forgot to note that Dr Christy supplies a lot of data to illustrate the points he makes. It is inconceivable that these data are manufactured or fictitious so one must assume that the points he makes are based on facts that can be readily checked by others. From these data it does appear the 1930s had a larger number of extreme events than succeeding decades even though CO2 levels were steadily climbing during these decades. Perhaps, as I’ve suggested above (rather tongue in cheek I must admit), increased CO2 really might ameliorate the unknown natural conditions causing the extreme weather events in the 1930s
In the 11,000+ year natural progression of warming from the last Ice Age to the present, shouldn’t one expect high temperature records, on average, to be broken on a yearly basis, and to far outnumber low records?
Thanks for the various responses. I’d hate you to think I was running away from the discussion but my reply to Hank Roberts (103) stating his comments were too full of hypotheticals followed by why this was so was deemed unsuitable for publication. Why I have no idea as it wasn’t abusive or off topic. I guess my time in the sun on this blog is over.
Unsettled,
I do not think Ian’s point was to say that these events cannot occur naturally, but rather that recent events are mimicked by those that occurred in the past. The claim has been made by some that the recent events are “unprecedented.” However, the data clearly shows that there are not. That does not translate to CO2 has no effect, but rather, that the effect is not more extreme than observed previosuly. That does not say that a combination of natural and manmade effects could exceed those of the past. The decade of the 30s is not any more “cherrypicked,” than that of the 2000s.
Since the scientific community already knows this (per your previous post), then it should come as no shock that the previous decade has mimicked the past. I do not understand why so many are rushing to deny this.
Final comment. Unsettled Scientist you state “I have a feeling you’re just playing a semantical game and aren’t really interested in learning how we are causing the climate to change right now” Actually I am interested but as a scientist in an entirely different field, biochemistry and molecular biology, I find the debate between the proponents and opponents of CAGW so snide and rancorous that it is difficult to to distinguish fact from opinion. Both sides of the debate seem to resort to ad hominems, just look at the comments to me here, which is so so totally different from the situation in other branches of science where those that disagree are at least civilised. In fairness I also get ad hominems at WUWT if I post something with which the readers of that blog disagree. Perhaps the attitudes of both sides is responsible, at least in part, for the declining interest in CAGW that is occurring globally not just in the US. Incidentally I live Australia
I gave a signing off comment for this particular topic noting that the debate on climate science from proponents and opponents is snide and rancorous. I also said that ad hominem attacks proliferate on both sides and said that comments to me on this particular post exemplified this. I also said that this rancour may well ahev been the reason that globally the public are turning away from CAGW However the moderator axed the comment whilst allowing the somewhat vulgar comments from Ron R through. Why am I not surprised
Ian,
I agree totally with your post beginning with final comment. People on the extreme ends of the climate debate often resort to just these types of attacks in order to move the argument away from the actual science. It is nice to see a refreshing voice.
Yo Gavin,
“on how little actually changed”
you’re right: the models will still be wrong.
Patrick,
Thank you for the long detailed response. There seems to be a common misconception here confusing feedback and gain.
WRT Solar power, my point is simply exposing the low power density of a solar installation capable of replacing baseload capacity. Of the order of 7 Watt per square meter. Compare that with the energy density (per square meter) of your local coal fired power station. Not only that, taking into account embodied energy makes the equation much much worse. I think this is fatal for Solar.
WRT your discussion on feedback the key for me is this statement
the non-Planck feedbacks to be positive and exceed the Planck response in magnitude and The equilibrium climate sensitivity is the negative inverse of the sum of all feedbacks
Now if you consider the feedback components one by one, according to their physical mechanisms and the lags inherent in them (delay between output and feedback, – thermal capacity/inertia) What is the maximum value of constructive reinforcement that can happen, and is that consistent with the observation that climate is remarkably stable. If the loop gain reaches 1 even transiently, then the system would become unstable and oscillate or drive to energy saturation.
What stops this happening, how is it that the system is able to ever cool? There is something wrong here, but I can’t quite put my finger on it. By the way, I calculate CO2 energy saturation at +5.2 degrees for 1ATM which is hardly Venus.
Further, in some cases it aught to be possible to experimentally exclude some feedback mechanisms altogether and the test the feedbacks mechanism by mechanism in order to verify the assumed total gain in real-world experiments. Nothing I read goes to this at all.
The high feedback gains required in my mind still contraindicate the models feasibility.
Patrick
I omitted a mechanism that would fit the current world view. Co2 warming is very near energy saturation, it could be that the gain is in fact an inverse function of temperature, and that small increases in temperature quickly reduce the gain. This is evident in equatorial temperature caps, where temperatures above a certain cap result in thunderstorms. This isn’t however consistent with the idea that Co2 warming can continue forever. This Hypothesis would place a strict cap on the amount of warming that can occur below the theoretical energy saturation level of +5.2 degrees.
Unsettled,
Just because the statment says that the natural component is certain, does not imply that the human is also certain. These are not mutually exclusive events. If you would read what others are saying about the dust bowl, you may come to a better understanding. In the same light, just because human cause have been shown for the recent changes, does not imply that the natural component is absent. Maybe that is why so many seem to think they know everything; they feel it must be one or the other, and if one is true, the other must be false. Very bad science.
Whit,
Interesting analogy. While I am sure there is more that one environmentalist out there who would jump on any theory that would paint Exxon as the bad guy, I an bit sure that most would. Granted, there are always those who look for doomsday scenarios, and others who view the world through rose-colored glasses. This is especially true, when there is sufficient uncertainty in the results to allow for other interpretations.
In view of the comments above, I am treading on eggs when writing this. As mentioned I have much to learn but today’s editorial in the New York Times today exemplifies the confusion with which those who are not climate scientists have to contend. The editorial reports some fairly trenchant criticism of the conclusions drawn by Dr Hansen in his most recent paper in PNAS. As Dr Hansen has a very high profile in Climate Science are the critics displaying excessive temerity in questioning such a guru or are they correct? Although Dr Weaver agrees with Dr Hansen others obviously do not. Is the paper “a muddle” and “not backed by persuasive evidence” as Dr Claudia Tibaldi contends or are her claims incorrect? Does Dr Hansen exaggerate the connection between global warming and weather extremes as is claimed by Dr Hoerling? Is Dr Hoerling’s claim that the paper is not “a serious science paper” correct? Certainly one surely could not quibble with his final comment that “perception is not a science”. Could one? Although articles such as this in the scientific literature typify the type of debate scientists hold on a variety of topics, their publication in the MSM, where the majority of readers probably are not scientists, could give the impression that the science of climate change might not be settled just yet.
@Chris #74
“Anyone who dismisses PIOMAS in the terms you state is talking ‘carp’.”
I did not mean to dismiss PIOMAS. Rather, I was soliciting the informed opinion as to what will be the resolution of the different rates of decline of volume and area/extent. Either the latter will start to collapse soon or the former will start bottoming out before hitting zero. I have no idea. There are differing views. Yours is quite persuasive. My only instinct on this is that if the apparent volume decline is correct, maybe we should have seen a sharper recent decline of area/extent already. How, for example, do we get a “virtually complete annihilation of grid boxes reporting thick ice” without a considerable loss of thin ice as well. Maybe it’s the thin ice on the periphery that is disappearing and the thick ice is spreading out to fill in, having lost its constraining border. That would make some sense. Anyway, exciting times. Thanks for the response.
Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.
Robert Frost
@Chris #74,
“Anyone who dismisses PIOMAS in the terms you state is talking ‘carp’.”
I did not mean to dismiss PIOMAS, I simply wanted to solicit views on how the differing rates of volume decline and area/extent decline will be resolved. Will we see the first ice-free day in 6y or 30? Who will blink first? I’m guessing it will be in the middle. But we still see major studies leading to headlines like, “Scientists Predict Ice-Free Arctic by 2070,” and lots of other weighty commentary that it’s decades away. (Was that from MIT?) They’re talking a single ice-free day. No mention of plummeting PIOMAS. Are they even aware of it? Do they consider it nonsense? I’d like to know. The consensus here seems to be that PIOMAS is legit, or approximately so. Cool. What will the models be predicting when the ice is gone? Can’t wait.
Here’s a corrected link to previously cited Ice Plots.
Unsettled,
I should have expected nothing less. Completely disregard the conclusions of the report in favor of one cherry-picked data point, which fits your own viewpoint. The report also shows that in-situ observations showed that 2009 was cloder than the 20th century average. But does that have any more meaning that your statement. As Susans says, “your reckless disregard for the truth is exceptional.”
Jeffrey @2,
Insurance is the worst metaphor. Using that logic, we must all believe in God(s)
Let me word this differently and see if I can avoid the Bore Hole.
Jeffrey @ #2, there is a real danger in promoting the insurance metaphor. There are any number of counter arguments to that logic. For example, I do not believe in a god, I do admit however that I may be wrong, and the consequences of being wrong are catastrophic (i.e. eternal damnation). So even though the chances of me being wrong are 1 in 1,000,000 the insurance arument means that I should still believe.
The answer is not insurance, it is finding the truth
Im a a many year loyal reader of Real Climate. This is my first comment.
Mike, I’ve always been fascinated with your work and look forward to your future research.
I appreciate your review of Romm and “communicating”.
I respectfully disagree with your advice.
Right know I think scientists need eloquence. They should not “exaggerate”, (has that worked in the past?) Describing the climate as being on” steroids” has especially bad connotations.Insurane model doesn’t work either. If it did Geico and Progressive should stop advertising.
I agree with with Tamino- “now is the time for unity”.
Sad comments by people like Jeffrey Davis, “Nuremberg Trials” Do these people try to add or simply try be members of a club?
jet
I’m looking for a different objective, I don’t want to be persuaded but rather informed. I’ve heard a lot of repetition but not much information. To communicate with me please give me the information and sound logic.
Our education system is all about teaching us to learn but not to think.
Lets have a revolution of thinking not a bombardment of being told what to think.
What is important for climate scientists is to know who their audience is.
I have been following the global warming debate for a while now, and it is still not clear to me what alarmists want from those who disagree with them, other than see terrible things happen to them. If you want them reduce their carbon footprint, why not come up with other reasons to do that (health, financial, fun etc). It surprises me that alarmists still think people can be insulted into compliance.
Im sure that if i wanted to know the color of a black board is and asked Marc Morano, hed buy me a beer and tell me its white, and if i were to ask a climate scientist, hed make me sell my house and pimp out my wife for the answer, and then only tell me that Morano is lying and sponsored by the beer industry.
109 prokaryotes
Have you been to Roy Spencer’s blog lately? John Christy graphs the Tmax and Tmin temps for the US over the last 80 years. The Tmin temps records has been increasing but is now up to the level it had been in the 1930’s.
Yes it is going up, will it continue to go up? Data not yet available. I think it would depend upon how much more the globe will warm. Lots of variations in that prediction.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
Ray Ladbury @47
With respect the examples that you site are not what I’m talking about. They are separate pieces of research with their own engineering and marketing. What we are talking about is your product of AGW and climate change which those products you site are dependant on.
Here’s a link to a Wikipedia for definition that I’ talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_engineering
The piece I site is as follows:
“Product engineering usually entails activity dealing with issues of cost, producibility, quality, performance, reliability, serviceability and user features.”
I believe that’s the focus needed to promote your theories and get them adopted more widely. If your interested I can give some of my professional opinions related to your specific product.
I do think some of the comments on this article have shown how NOT to communicate, as Eric makes clear earlier:
“….This sort of talk simply helps convince others that those on the side of taking the climate change risk seriously are crazy ideologues. Comments of this sort tend to make me agree with them. Enough.–eric]”
I guess this is the bloggers dilemma, anybody can read the comments beneath an article, so do you delete them or respond? (like Eric responded) especially if the comments are obviously on the same ’side’ (albeit at a more extreme)
If the comments are a little ‘off the wall’, shall we say, like ‘criminality’ or ‘Nuremburg’ then you (the author or blog) may/will by some end up being judged by them. Unfairly.
ie some responses seem to communicate totally negatively to a wider audience that read Realclimate, but may not comment much, ie criminality and assets taken..
assets may only be siezed legally, only if a ‘crime’ (ie actual legal definition, not a ‘moral’ one) has happened,trial, etc and as for comments like Nuremburg trials that sort of rhetoric really does not help.
I know many think that a climate catastrophy is on the horizon and the Nuremburg analogy has been used many times and for example Mark Lynas, who is on the Realclimate blog role said the following a while back (echoing Hari & Monbiot)
Lynas (2006)
“I wonder what sentences judges might hand down at future international criminal tribunals on those who will be partially but directly responsible for millions of deaths from starvation, famine and disease in decades ahead. I put this in a similar moral category to Holocaust denial – except that this time the Holocaust is yet to come, and we still have time to avoid it.”
yet a number of years later Mark Lynas had this to say
Lynas (2011)
“That this was spotted at all is a tribute to the eagle eyes of Steve McIntyre. Yet I am told that he is a ‘denier’, that all his deeds are evil, and that I have been naively led astray by him. Well, if the ‘deniers’ are the only ones standing up for the integrity of the scientific process, and the independence of the IPCC, then I too am a ‘denier’.”
Mark has gone on to say that ‘Deniers Halls of Shame’ are shameful, Mark was on the advisory board of one such groups.
Lynas (2011)
“…Barry, you are right that the ‘Sceptics Hall of Shame’ is itself shameful – I wonder if I can appear on it now whilst still being a board member of the Campaign Against Climate Change (in all honesty I’d forgotten that I was on the board – I never have anything to do with them!).
I’ve checked and I’m still on the RealClimate blogroll… long may it continue!
Mark”
hopefully the more silly rhetoric can be toned down, and the community can take a lead in that and a more civil conversation can result (as eric has done)
Mark and I had lunch a while back, presumably not something one does if you think they are morally comparable holocaust denial.
(comment originally said spam – so have removed some urls to the quotes – google should find them – ie more than 2 urls, that may have cased the problem)
The topic of whether squishy terms like “suggest” should be used speaks directly to the overstatement of certainty in the public sphere of climate science. Polls have shown that the public already believes the consequences of AGW has been overstated.
Certainly Hansen can state his opinion on the certainty of his own results. It crosses the line when he makes definitive (not conditional) alarmist statements that infer that this is the consensus state of the science itself. His position at NASA allows him to speak from authority on this.
It is my opinion that although this is demonstrably useful as a short term strategy (media ambush, headline seeking), it backfires in the long term with respect to credibility for climate science. This is because a person of high authority can be easily refuted by opponents (i.e. is this the best you got?).
It is a very simple assertion that when claims of doom fail to materialize that subsequent claims will be taken with less regard.
I respect that Hansen truly believes in his cause, and he backs that up with more realistic proposals than most (large scale conversion to nuclear power, etc.). I just don’t think overstating certainty and alarmism is the path to progress that requires support from both sides of the aisle.
So what’s my solution? Cede the possibility of short term policy action as unwinnable for now, and treat this fight like a marathon, not a sprint. Support long term conversion to economically viable low carbon solutions. Rebuild credibility along the way, the alarmists are hurting you more than helping you.
I remember working on the IGY data back in the early ’60s. The study of climate change throughout the Pleistocene was a ‘hot’ topic way back then. I find it disturbing in all the hype about recent warming that people concentrate on a couple so centuries worth of weather data rather than hundreds of thousands or millions of years worth of climate data. When this current warming is put in the larger context it is not at all remarkable. There have been a number of periods like this throughout the recent earth history and much warmer periods if you go back a ways (geologically speaking).
“I cut off the graph at 500 A.D. so that the instrumental data wouldn’t be too squished to the right on the graphs.”
Poop Eric, poop.
[Response:With all due respect, all the data are available on line, and I provided the link. Plot the graph yourself if you want to do something different with it. –eric]
As soon as you invoke the word “Denial” or “Denialism” etc. you loose the argument due to Godwin’s Law.
Good point Chris. Previously, many have pointed to the ratio of record highs to record lows in the past decade as evidence of more extremes, without realizing that the ratio is largely driven by the decrease in record lows. In fact, earlier decades have seen a greater abundance of record highs than recently, but were offset by a large occurrance of record lows. This would show a naroowing of the temperatre range recently, resulting in an overall decrease in temperature extremes.
#142 sidd
Understanding that CO2 blocks IR requires an understanding of how. Comprehending the isotopic signature of fossil fuel loading of the air requires an understanding of how. Grasping that CO2 warming leads to water vapor feedback requires an understanding of how. Seeing that applying a substantial fraction of a watt in radiative imbalance to every last square meter of the world will heat it up requires an understanding of how.
Or you can just accept that others know best. (Like, you might say, fingers crossed).
“Of course, the ozone hole didn’t exist before the 1970s,…”
Hum! How could you be so sure of that? Measurements started only in the 1980’s and the precision was not so good. Today, numerous studies found that cold temperatures in the high atmosphere were responsible for that. That is why the cold atmosphere over the Arctic created one of the rarely seen ozone hole in 2011 (if my memory is exact).
I noticed you said west antarctic, which suggests an east/west division. how can that be? the continent is basically round with “comma” like peninsula. if you have to partition it would it not make more sense to either refer to the peninsula side or the large round side… or better yet the american side/AUSNZ side/afirican Side. The cold war was over 20 years ago.
#148 Radge Havers
“But it’s enough to see that AGW is real and serious”
But it’s not necessarily A(GW) and not necessarily serious.
So it (your little understanding) is not enough to see what you think you see, after all.
What is the most important climate condition to keep tabs on?
The global mean temperature trend:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2004/trend:1970/trend
Eek – chartjunk alert! Please, stick to real scientific graphics, with 0 on the y-axis, units of measure, etc., and leave the suggestive pictures to USA Today.
The most important indicators of climate are:
1. The longest accurate temperature series (Central England) which shows 20th century warming is far from unprecedented
2. global rainfall, which being far simpler than temperature is more accurate and less subject to measurement problems than temperature and being directly related to global heat transfer should be a good indicator of problems but shows no increase
3. The trend of extreme weather events – which show no trend
4. Solar activity which has more science backing it that any of this nonsense about feedbacks.
The putative warming imbalance of the planet is 0.9W/sq.m of 145E20 Joules/year.
Arctic sea ice reduction accounts for about 1E20 Joules/year – 1/145th of the planet’s supposed energy gain equal to 0.7%.
This is from a surface area inside the Arctic circle (66 degN) of about 4% of the Earth’s surface.
Could someone explain why we are so worried about the Arctic rather than any other 4% patch of the Earth’s surface?
[Response: Could someone explain why we care about that canary who only breathes 4% of the air a person does? Mysteries abound…. – gavin]
Response: The AMO, as we have shown in numerous articles, has little influence on global (or even Northern Hemisphere) average temperature. It’s largely a zero sum game because it mostly associated with changes in the transport of heat between regions.
Hi Dr. Mann
According to what I find
– Zero sum game
yes across 9-10 or 64-5 years, but necessarily not in between, unless a symmetrical section is selected
– changes in the transport of heat between regions
The SST changes trend direction almost simultaneously (within 1-2 years, across most of the North Atlantic, while e.g. subpolar gyre has cycle of about two decades. It is more likely that the AMOscillations are responsible for transport of heat in the vertical direction (from surface downwards) and it can be adequately represented as an amplification system (see link below)
– has little influence on global (or even Northern Hemisphere)
The N.H. Tav (detrended) and the AMO are inextricably linked together (with high uncertainty of order of precedence) as I show here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSC1.htm
Since the ‘AMO’ type oscillations are detectable in other areas of the globe, the oscillations are most likely globally generated, but due the North Atlantic’s specific properties, their presence there is more evident.