A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.
Reader Interactions
2040 Responses to "The Bore Hole"
Dave Walkersays
Re “Ray” at 178
I don’t know who you are Ray but you seem like a man who wants to talk straight and isn’t averse to speaking his mind and telling complete strangers just how wrong and laughable they are. Other readers will hopefully therefore forgive me if I reply directly to “Ray” in a tone that he seems to prefer.
Ray, firstly, just at human level, you are very rude man. But hey, that’s how some people operate so I’ll live with it.
Secondly, I get the impression that you consider yourself to be learned, well educated and all knowing – but, as often the case, you fail to see the wood for the trees.
My original involvement, and the only views I have presented have been to do with the “debate” about climate change and the occasional “disconnect” between the actual facts surrounding a particular issue – and the general public’s perception of that particular point. I note that at least one person “got” my point – Keith at #168 above.
Then you wrote this:
“Adding Arctic and Antarctic sea ice together is absurd on the face of it. When Arctic sea ice is melting, Antarctic sea ice is of course freezing. It’s Winter there ferchrissake. And likewise when Antarctic sea ice is melting. You have just constructed a metric that will only be minimally sensitive to global changes”.
… I’ll tell what is laughable Ray. Laughable is when you completely fail to understand the simple graph that you are looking at – and then you compound the error by publicly attempting to ridicule me based entirely on your complete lack of understanding!?!
Look at the graph again Ray at: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif and try and work out what the graph shows in terms of trends for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice area levels over the last 25 years – then come back to me. (clue: winter and summer have got nothing to with the 25 year trend).
To any other readers that have not got bored and gone away – I apologise.
ferdberplesays
we should have mentioned that we are a climate science blog
=================
Watts has won science blog of the year 3 times with huge traffic volumes. You could and have done much worse than to hire him. It is tough times for climate science. China will be increasing its emissions until at least 2030. India much longer. The developed nations are running huge deficits and will not be able to afford the $100 billion a year promised to the Climate Fund. The new Congress will move to cut off climate funding and the UN poll has climate change dead last in the list of people’s priorities. The main players at Real Climate are bailing and you are in need of new leadership. Watts is your man.
“In general increased global tectonic activity equates to more faulting and crustal plate movement which leads to more global heat release from faults, fractures and volcanoes that are more active.
Altered heat input equates to climate change.
This effect has been largely hidden from scientific investigation because the primary heat release is within under-explored / monitored deep ocean regions; deep ocean rifts (major faults separating blocks of the earth’s surface), fumaroles, traverse faults, and other fault types. Ocean temperatures, densities, and chemical compositions are altered by this varying tectonic activity. The “altered oceans” then influence or drive climate changes and climate related events.”
“Until recently vertical segregation of the deep oceans was argued as a reason for not including the deep
oceans and deep ocean floor in climate models. This notion has changed in the last few years as
observed natural climate variations were difficult to explain based solely on atmospheric models. This
essentially opened up Pandora’s Box. It is now fair game to include all deep ocean phenomenons in
climate models. We completely agree with this change, and believe it strengthens our long-standing
contention that geological influences from deep ocean floor surfaces such as; plate junctures, transverse
faults, volcanically active areas, etc. should be considered in climate modeling.”
We must “obey” the certainty of “science” not the “belief” of conservative hating “believers” and until science says its “proven”, it’s not “proven”. How close to the point of no return from unstoppable warming will science take us before they put aside their scientific method and say a “threat to the planet” is “proven” and something beyond 33 years of “could be” the end of days.
jluntysays
@#70 spilgard
‘flogging,shopworn,silliness’and #63 jgnfld with ‘disastrous near zero’
Could terminology be one of the reasons why this site is closing and yet Jo Nova has an increase in traffic of 20%,Anthony Watts remains far and away number 1 and ‘climate’ doesn’t make it into the top ten science press releases for 2014.We know it’s not the science because that’s settled.
Dr. Shoosh Mondoogansays
I just wanted to say I have almost no respect for this wesbite. The only person who is worth reading here is Gavin Schmidt.
“Walter Paul· 3 hours ago
Edward — you can find my name in the the APS (American Physical Society) directory. I have no idea what your credentials are, nor do I really care. The debate should be about the science. There is a wide range of possible climate sensitivity in the peer reviewed literature. There is even an argument as to whether it makes sense to define a climate sensitivity for a system that is non-linear and chaotic. I am not arguing dogmatically that it is impossible that increasing CO2 will lead to problems down the road. It just seems very unlikely based on my evaluation of the scientific evidence. Can you see any possibility that you are wrong, and CO2 does not represent an imminent danger requiring the expenditure of 100’s of billions of dollars per year just to get started? Have you seen cost estimates and strategies for getting away from fossil fuels? Many Trillions.
The Argo floats indeed purport to measure an increase in ocean temperature. The scale is usually reported in units of 10^22 Joules. Why do you suppose they use a scale like this instead of telling us an average temperature change? Because the dT would be on a 0.01 C scale — which is ZERO to within the error. In other worlds, this claim is speculative at best.”
Edward Greischsays
Few people care about sea level rise. Please do an article about future food.
Billsays
Climate change is a religion. If we do nothing about it, we go to “hell.” If we do something about it, we go to “heaven.”
The only reason 2014 is ”the hottest” is because: they intend next year in Paris to put the last nail on the coffin of the truth!
2014 is not warmer OR colder than any other year!!! Here are the proofs ” beyond any reasonable doubt” : https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/
#220 Russell: “While is awash with water, not superfluid helium, air and water in contact are thermodynamically driven towards becoming isothermal, and automatically mixed by the density changes that ensue from daytime heating and nghtime cooling, resulting in a mixed layed100 meters deep.”
This is a bit garbled, so difficult to understand. But what you say about thermal diffusivity interests me. Can you point us to something in the literature that describes how thermal diffusivity operates in the context of global warming?
“The confusion presented here is that “the warming process” under discussion is not exclusively heating the atmosphere. The vast majotiy of this heating process is heating the oceans.”
Yes, but since we’re talking about the greenhouse effect, then the heating must make its first appearance in the atmosphere, no? And the atmosphere heats up much more quickly than the oceans, no? So there is going to be some sort of time lag between the two, no? You seem to be implying that there isn’t any or that the difference is negligible, and that puzzles me, since the ocean is so vast and water heats up so much more slowly than air.
The 21 year “lag” I mentioned is just a thought, not really even a hypothesis, so don’t take it all that seriously. But there has to have been some sort of lag, of some length — the heat couldn’t possibly have pervaded the ocean instantaneously. As far as I can tell, my question has nothing to do with the difference between surface air temp and radiative forcing but if you say so, fine I’ll accept that I’m confused in that respect. As I see it, what puzzles me is the difference between SAT and OHC and the time lag from the former to the latter. And if there is none, then after reading your explanation I have to admit I’m still in the dark.
I’m grateful for your lessons on basic climate science pertaining to the greenhouse effect and heat flow, but as far as I can tell none of these posts address the issue of OHC lag. I’ve been asking how it can be claimed that the current state of the ocean reflects the current state of the atmosphere given the time needed for the ocean to heat, which is reportedly a matter of decades.
#256 “Which “climate scientists” describe the claim that the “missing heat” is in the oceans as “Ocean ate my global warming”?
#257 “Scientists? Cite their work. I think you’re misled or misleading us.
‘oogle the phrase “Ocean ate my global warming” — that’s straight out of Watts’s blog.”
Here’s what I wrote:
“And before I start hearing again about how stupid my questions are and how little I understand about climate science, this is in fact a concern expressed by many of the climate scientists I’ve been reading and listening to. Most of them simply dismiss theories of that sort as crude attempts to get around the “fact” of the hiatus. I’ve seen that referred to as the “Ocean ate my global warming” theory, as though it was some sort of excuse. And I must say, it sounds like some sort of “just so” story.”
You might need to read that more than once, because obviously some posting here have serious deficiencies in that department. NO where do I claim to have found “The Ocean ate my global warming” anywhere in the scientific literature.
When you read with bias aforethought, seeing what you expect to see and conveniently glossing over details that might challenge your preconceptions, then it’s all too easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.
Regarding the question I keep asking, that never seems to find an answer:
From what I’ve been reading here, and I hope it’s not typical, what passes for science among many climate scientists is more or less at the Popular Mechanics level. I’m getting lots of technical descriptions of what happens in the air, the sea and the land, and on a purely technical level that’s impressive. But not convincing, because not one single “expert” posting here seems capable of moving from purely technical description and methodology to logical evaluation of what any of it actually means. Which is where the real science comes in.
Thank you thank you thank you, Martin. This is the type of response I was hoping for from the beginning. And I very much appreciate the parallel with Plato’s Meno — you’re telling me what I already knew without my knowing it. Excellent. And you are explaining the logic behind the mechanics, which is what I was hoping for.
I’d like to remind you, however, that I did admit at least twice that I could be getting this wrong, and that I would welcome it if someone set me straight. You have almost done that. Almost. But there is one more step.
Consider a coal fired power plant in India, spewing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (along with a lot of other crap we need not get into at the moment) over a 24 hour period. Now as I understand it, the consensus is that this carbon is destined to heat up both the atmosphere and the oceans, via the greenhouse effect, by producing an imbalance, as you’ve described it.
Now I’m going to ask you how long it takes for the imbalance produced by this CO2 added to the atmosphere during this 24 hour period to propagate into the atmosphere and from there to the oceans in the manner that is being claimed — presumably warming both. Please don’t say “instantaneously,” because nothing is instantaneous, not even the propagation of light.
So what I’d like to see, first of all, is a mathematical formula for computing the time needed for the effect to complete itself, and a rough estimate of what that total duration might be. If it’s within one or two years, then I’ll be satisfied and reward you with a star.
#275 Thanks, Meow. But I thought that was more or less what I was puzzling over. If it takes decades for the ocean to accumulate all that heat, then the present temperature of the ocean would be a reflection of forces that were initiated decades ago, and may no longer be in play.
#276 BPL: “Victor, in statistics there is a precisely defined meaning of trend. A time series exists a “trend” if the slope of the series regressed on elapsed time is statistically significant. By that definition, there is a very definite trend upward of surface temperatures since at least 1850. It isn’t really something subject to personal opinion.”
No, but it IS subject to objective observation. The goal of statistics is to approximate reality in a numerical form, making it subject to computation. By producing statistics, in other words, you produce grist for the computational mill, which enables you to build on your statistics by using the usual mathematical tools. However, statistics is NOT in itself a royal road to the truth (or if you prefer, reality) and it is very dangerous to let oneself see it as such. It is a computational tool, not a lens.
One example, as I’m sure you realize, is the fact that you’ll get different trend lines depending on the chosen endpoints. To decide on the most appropriate endpoints, you must already have a pretty good idea of your expected trend ahead of time. And if you don’t get the expected trend, then it is all too tempting to change those endpoints until you do.
Bottom line: there is a statistical trend and there is an observational trend. Each has its purpose, each has its strengths and its weaknesses. Each is valid depending on the circumstances. As I see it, a clear trend should be evident to the eye. If statistics is necessary to “reveal” a trend, then the statistical trend is not enough. More evidence is needed to determine whether the trend actually represents something real.
#274 Ray: “You say you are here to debate rather than learn about climate science. Problem is that the purpose of this website is precisely to teach interested laymen about climate science. It is specifically not intended to be a debating society.”
Funny, but I thought I was doing the teaching. Rowdy classroom, for sure.
:-)
Seriously, when I first appeared on this site it was to shamelessly promote my blog and invite people reading here to check it out and comment THERE, not here. Some did go there and a heated debate ensued — but most preferred to remain here and they were the ones who started the debate, not I. I am innocent.
Seems to me what you are describing re the stove and freezer comes under the heading “chaos theory.” Cause and effect relations become very problematic in that context. And yes, the weather certainly comes under this heading. And certainly many aspects of climate are subject to chaotic forces. So yes you have a point. (For example, take the “butterfly effect,” where the flapping of a butterfly’s wings could, theoretically, precipitate a tornado. No one could possibly trace the cause to the butterfly.)
But this would be your problem, not mine, because if you want to establish CO2 emissions as a cause of dangerous heating in a chaotic context, then how do you do it? If the situation is too chaotic (i.e., out of control and unpredictable) then not only won’t you have a clear correlation but you will have no basis for distinguishing cause from effect either.
But this is all purely theoretical. Proponents of AGW insist that there is in fact a correlation, only that it’s not obvious and requires a certain amount of statistical massaging to emerge. And we’ve already been over that.
“Victor, that part of your whole comment at 259 that uses the term “trend” takes as an assumption a fundamental rejection of a large area of important mathematics . . .”
No, not at all. See my reply to #276 BPL, above. In short, statistics is a computational tool, not an observational tool. A graph enables us to see a trend in the data (assuming it is there). Statistics enables us to compare the data with other data in quantitative terms and perform computations. As such it is extremely valuable. But any “trend” it shows us should not be taken at face value unless it can be verified by eye.
Your mathematical example is interesting, but its important to remember that a mathematical trend is very different from a trend in the real world. Now let’s assume that during January a certain city received progressively more snowfall each day, which tells us there was a clear upward trend. But samples of snow depth were taken only once every few days, and thanks to intermediate melting at various times, the underlying trend became obscured, to the point that, on a graph, it looked as though there were no trend at all. Would a linear regression be capable of revealing the underlying trend? I don’t see how. But if the linear regression is incapable of revealing what really happened, then it might just as easily produce a downward trend, falsely implying a decline in snowfall during that month.
“Finally, I note that you have not acknowledged the falsification I gave in 231 of your claim that all the energy of the ocean heat content increase since 2000 was first sitting in the atmosphere in 1979.”
That was not my claim. I am puzzled by the question of how all the heat “missing” from the atmosphere since 1998 could suddenly find itself in the ocean within a year or two.
Keith Woollardsays
How about some of the smarter ones of you who have been wasting huge amounts of brain cells putting down Victor try and allay my concerns raised in #42 (the answer!!) and 58 and 89. The take-home point of Gavin’s essay is that we are still basically on trend, but that is only because the data has been changed. Can’t you see how that looks to those outside your group?
it shall take some tenths of thousands of years before the solar corona disappears again so we are not freezing in the near future. note that solar wind counts for only 20 deg. Celsius of our climate while solar irradiance for another 250 deg Celsius in total. without sun we would be at around absolut zero.
DFsays
I think you go a bit too easy on this issue. There is near perfect linear correlation between adjustments from raw to final temperatures for USHCN and the rise of the CO2 content in the atmosphere. This is demonstrated very clearly in the article: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/ncdc-breaks-their-own-record-for-data-tampering-in-2014/
Scientific minds should feel inclined to take that very seriously and start asking: How can it be?
Peter Gadielsays
A few thoughts: UN IPCC Official Admitted in 2010: ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’
My backyard in Vermont is full of stones left over from the global warming at the end of the last ice age. Stone age men at fault.
Medieval Warming Period.
Hockey Stick Fraud.
Gore et al are so committed to stemming global warming they refuse to fly on commercial jets.
And you wonder that most of us recognize a fraud when we see it?
Funny that the head of the Climate Research Unit was caught in his emails saying he disbelieved the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Periods based on his “gut feelings”…since when was science done based on “gut feelings”?
It is funny that whenever man-made climate change is discussed the alarmist are reluctant to bring up how earth’s past climate has change drastically without man’s input. Something smell’s fishy.
This article sums up the author’s scientific incompetence. For someone who adheres to the most absurd theory of runaway manmade global warming, this article takes the biscuit. Does the author realise just how out of touch with empirical evidence and the general public he is? Rather like the nutters who claimed HIV was a sexually transmitted virus that would decimate the heterosexual population in the west, the author clings similarly to the patently absurd idea that man made C02 controls the earth’s climate. Oh dear. You’re the joke Mr. Schmidt, not Willy Soon.
vukcevicsays
N. Hemisphere climate is under control of polar and sub-tropical jet-streams, whereby the long term zonal-merdional positioning of jet streams depends on the extent and strength of three primary cells (Pollar, Ferral and Hadley).
Since the equatorial temperature changes little, it is the Arctic temperature which moves jet streams latitudinal location.
It is true that the Arctic temperatures are not particularly accurate, but trend along the polar circle (where Pollar & Ferral cells meet) is an acceptable representation, in that respect it is correct that Dr. Schmidt draws attention to the Arctic temperatures. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF1.htm
Strong correlation between the Arctic temperature anomaly and averaged strength of the geomagnetic field (R2>0.8) is not necessarily proof of causation, but it is stronger than what Dr. Soon proposes, on the other hand Dr. Schmidt (and a certain Dr. Svalgaard solar scientist – Stanford University) may wish to discredit it.
A ‘little’ matter of mechanism
Solar magnetic activity reaches the Earth’s poles in form of geomagnetic storms. NASA: “a two-hour average sub-storm releases total energy of five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake”
This is in form of the electric current ionising upper layers of the atmosphere, whereby the atmospheric flow is affected by the strength of the magnetic field (Lorentz law). Assuming that the sun varies little over centuries, the Earth’s field (i.e. magnetospheres shielding) is not constant (currently loosing its strength); weaker the magnetic field, stronger the solar incursion, stronger the effect on the climate.
The above can be clearly seen in the graph linked above.
Salamanosays
“…We focused on the Northern Hemisphere and the role played by two climate oscillations known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or “AMO” (a term I coined back in 2000, as recounted in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars)…”
(Just my opinion) seems to me this is a rather useless addendum of content for this piece. It’s also a risky move if it’s not actually true. (see Williams, Brian).
Why bother including it at all? Whether you coined the actual phrase or not is immaterial to the points you make. It kind of sounds self-aggrandizing. I recall inside-baseball arguments among the old-school meteorologists in the Boston TV market about who really first coined the term “partly cloudy”. Does it even matter?
Important aspects of AMO variability ignored by climate models:
North Atlantic decadal and Multidecadal Oscillation AMO (de-trended N. Atlantic SST) can be successfully explained and numerically represented by solar- geomagnetic interactions. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSCp.gif
N. Hemisphere’s climate is under control of the polar and sub-tropical jet-streams, whereby the long term zonal-merdional positioning of jet streams depends on the extent and strength of three primary cells (Pollar, Ferrel and Hadley). http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream//global/images/jetstream3.jpg
Since the equatorial temperature changes little, it is the Arctic temperature which moves jet streams latitudinal location.
Solar magnetic activity reaches the Earth’s poles in form of geomagnetic storms. NASA: “a two-hour average sub-storm releases total energy of five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake”
This is in form of the electric current ionising upper layers of the atmosphere, whereby the atmospheric flow is affected by the changes in the resultant magnetic field (Lorentz law). The Earth’s field (i.e. magnetospheres shielding) is not constant (the internal oscillations are due to the cores differential rotation – see J. Dickey, JPL).
The strength the solar incursions is modulated by the interactions of two fields, since it is strongest at the poles, effect on the polar vortex and subsequently the Arctic’s jet stream would be strongest.
Geomagnetic effect is also clearly demonstrated in the Arctic temperatures up-trend and its multidecadal oscillations with correlation factor R2>0.8. http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF1.gif
Response to response 1: Do you really want to play semantics – you knew and know exactly what I meant. Mann made bold predictions of an immediate future warming climate and the IPCC selected certain climate models, by whatever criteria, to aggregate predicted future temperature trends leading to dire scenarios. However, despite repeated lower IPCC revisions, the observed temperature still does not match the predictions (for one or two decades now). This can only mean one of four things: 1) A tremendous amount of “forced” energy is “missing” and cannot be measured or 2) The observed temperature(s)is/are not accurate because the temperature sensors are inaccurate (i.e., run cool), or 3) The climate models run warm for whatever reason, or 4) The observed temperature is correct. If 1, 2, 3 is correct, then this is correctable. However, if 4 is correct, anyone who incorrectly or stubbornly believes 1, 2, or 3 could be termed a climate “denier”.
Response to response 2: If it was wrong before he (Soon) even started, then we shall know very soon will we not? But could “being wrong before it even started” be said of Mann predictions and multiple climate models, and therefore the various IPCC projections? At least Soon’s “model” has not been tested for any length of time unlike others. If a tremendous surge in temperature is seen, then Soon will be discredited. However, if we do not see a tremendous surge in temperature, others will be discredited.
RJsays
I don’t understand. If there’s no pause in the warming, why are so many scientists coming up with theories to explain it? (eg heat lost to deep ocean).
Victorsays
#49, goldmund52
What he said.
barn E. rubblesays
RE:”No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.”
Kevin Trenberth, among other prominent climatologists, has not only acknowledged the ‘pause’ but has explicitly stated it was expected.
I take it that there isn’t a consensus on this, which is understandable, however I’m wondering what data &/or information you have (that they don’t) that leads you to your conclusion that there is/has been no pause/hiatus?
Tom O'Reillysays
#52 “Important caution there — hard argument ain’t easy.”
Cant’t agree. Arguing is as easy as eating mothers pie. It’s reason, and logic, and being able to operate above bias and ego and personal beliefs that is all
but impossibly hard.
#51 Robert Way – your’re wasting your time mate, with both presenting your views (being treated respectfully, ever – Disagreement is NOT PERMITTED) and trying to manage the recapture spam system. Think of of it as dealing wiht the public service bureaucracy – they are designed to send people off the edge regularly with frustration and hopefully give up never to return. Keep it up and you too will end up in the Borehole – that is the decade long mentality at RC. They are RIGHT 24/7, everyone else is an idiot.
Being right is often far more important than learning; truth or greater wisdom; let alone winning the long term Policy and Values War using science and protecting lives of REAL People which are at stake… RealClimate is always more important than anything or anyone. That’s not an idle opinion, is a provable historical facts.
To RC thanks for posting my comments about Mike Mann’s and his communication style one on one and public presentations and accompanying urls to highly qualified scientists, including the worlds leading COGNITIVE SCIENTIST bar none. NOT!
Thomas O'Reillysays
All That, and the RC website is more times than not technically dysfunctional.
HTTP websites and web servers have been going since the 1990s – except repeatedly at RC. Would be fascinating to hear the explanations of “scientists” about that.
This is from someone who actually accepts the science of AGW/CC in general, not some crazed ideological denier nutter; and a webmaster who has direct personal experience plus knowledge in the field of “website tech”.
In a word? RC is “Painful”
Dr Norman Pagesays
The peak warming of the latest millennial solar cycle occurred in about 2003.Rational forecasts of future climate cannot be made without taking this into account.Trends should be plotted up to and post 2003 to see what is really going on.see
1. The Steinman Mann Miller paper goes a very long way around to rediscover the 60 year cycle so obvious in a cursory glance at the temperature data. The authors still ignore, as do all the IPCC warming forecasts,the equally obvious 960 year natural solar cycle. The IPCC projections are more or less nonsensical – exactly like taking the temperature trend form say Jan – July and projecting it forwards in a straight line for 10 years or more.
The peak warming of the latest millennial solar cycle occurred in about 2003.Rational forecasts of future climate cannot be made without taking this into account. Trends should be plotted up to and post 2003 to see what is really going on.see http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
For forecasts of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling which should bring us back to the depths of another little ice age at about 2650 see http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Steve Fishsays
Re- Comment by wili — 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:45 AM, ~#122
The article that initiated this thread clarifies the fact that, although surface temperatures are increasing a little slower than expected, global warming is increasing apace because the extra heat went into the ocean. It seems to me that we should not claim that global warming will accelerate in the future (come back to haunt us) when the various oscillations shift to the opposite phase and cause surface temperatures to increase a little faster and the ocean to warm a little slower. This is the same reasoning used to hype the, so called, pause.
#121 HR re the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” AMO.
I think I can see the cause and the solution to this problem of climate scientists receiving due credit. Like other scientific endeavors there is not enough “Doppler Effects” or “PASTEURizations” or “Hubble Space Telescopes”.
What could solve it is incorporating Registered Trademarks. Such as “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation TM”. Registered TMs can be easily searched for who owns them.
Or, of course, to call AMO the “Mann Effect” instead?
Or instead of discussing the cause of confusing climate communications (the CCCC tm) to refer to it generically as the “IPCC Effect”? 8^)
John Jacksonsays
This is my first posting here, and as such I’ll make it brief and simple.
I’ve been studying the climate change issue, and as part of that effort I look at websites on both sides, and read some papers. A skeptic site that I see referred to here and elsewhere as “WUWT” has highlighted a January 2014 workshop held by the American Physical Society.
It was a moderated discussion among six noted scientists, three on each side. The skeptics seem to have given the APS workshop high marks for framing the issue in a way that articulately presented their arguments, and the arguments that they oppose.
This site is obviously very much in favor of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. My question is to anyone here who’s aware of the APS workshop. Do you think it framed the two sides accurately?
A request in advance: I react very badly to bumper stickers, so please give me a straight, literal answer. Thanks.
TonyLsays
Stefen,
In this article you state “the weakness of the [AMOC] flow after 1975 is unique in more than a thousand years”. The Rossby et al paper (referenced @30) shows with very accurate measurements no slowing of the AMOC over the last 20 years, or half the time period of your claim from 1975. You also claim to Sven @30 that Rossby et al doesn’t apply since it is different time periods, yet these two periods overlap half the time.
Do you believe your proxy data clearly shows the AMOC slowed from 1975 to 1995, or would you consider the accurate measurements of Rossby et al from 1995 to be more indicative of the real behavior of the AMOC across this entire time span (i.e., no slowing since 1975)? To me, it is doubtful that the AMOC experienced “unique weakness” from 1975 that stopped in 1995, mainly because the momentum of the AMOC is enormous.
TIA,
TonyL
Thomas O'Reillysays
Steve, do people still smoke cigarettes?
I prefer to stick to climate issues.
Thomas O'Reillysays
Kevin, CO2e is still increasing exponentially over the forward estimates of energy use. Fossil Fuels increase in real terms from now to 2040, all things being equal, which includes a massive uptake of renewables and a successful COP21 meeting.
By 2040 this means CO2 @ ~475ppm.
Imagine beaming up every single AGW/CC denier activist from the planet to the Enterprise right now. What would that 475ppm now be as a forecast for 2040?
What changes in our global energy use and growing consumer societies as a result of no more deniers?
What has replaced the now out of service Nuclear Reactors in 2040 in the USA, as just one classic example? Sure, all hypothetical and rhetorical questions, not needing of an answer.
Thomas O'Reillysays
#78 Stefan “You cannot give a certain atmospheric CO2 ppm limit for an AMOC shutdown,”
To borrow a phrase from M Mann, you’re missing the point here Stefan. Neither I nor the Ward ref were giving “a certain ppm” for an AMOC shutdown. I have no idea how you get that idea from what I wrote.
Re: “There are practically no paleo analogues of the fast global warming experiment we are conducting now.” Very true. I wan’t suggesting otherwise. So again I have no idea why you would say that in response.
It’s the global warming experiment itself that obviously needs to be shutdown. Isn’t that the only real problem anyone can do anything about?
It’s irrational, to me, to be discussing an AMOC shutdown, and it’s illogical to be researching how soon that might happen too, when it is already known that to get to such a point means certain death. If not for all, at least for most. And
there certainly will not be any NASA/GISS or IPCC still operating for decades before those kinds of things start happening either.
Isn’t holding CO2 @ 400ppm the only rational and ethical response to AGW/CC today based on existing scientific knowledge?
Do that and the Arctic sea ice, the AMOC, and sea level rise etc are no longer problems and no longer need researching or disclaimers made about the uncertainties up to 2100 anymore.
Thomas O'Reillysays
Counterproductive is anything that is more of an “obstacle” than a help in the achieving of a productive project or an objective.
Dictionary – counterproductive
tending to hinder or act against the achievement of an aim
Tending to hinder rather than serve one’s purpose.
thwarting the achievement of an intended goal;
tending to defeat one’s purpose.
tending to hinder the achievement of a goal
having the opposite of the desired effect.
Counterproductive norms: A situation that prevents a group, organization, or other collective entities from performing or accomplishing its originally stated function
Synonyms
harmful – causing or capable of causing harm;
Thomas O'Reillysays
If someone is allowed to present a “rhetorical argument” about smoking on these pages, then the response should also be allowed to address it. That’s only logical and also reasonable to do so.
#58 Steve “Thomas, I am curious. Don’t you think that societal attitudes about the fake tobacco/cancer controversy would have changed more quickly if there hadn’t been a corporate disinformation campaign?”
Post the “corporate disinformation campaign” people are still smoking. Global cigarette production continues to rise. 35 years after 1980 there are more smokers today than ever before.
Science Paper:
Results Global modeled age-standardized prevalence of daily tobacco smoking in the population older than 15 years decreased from 41.2% in 1980 to 31.1% in 2012 for men and from 10.6% to 6.2% for women.
Conclusions and Relevance Since 1980, large reductions in the estimated prevalence of daily smoking were observed at the global level for both men and women, but because of population growth, the number of smokers increased significantly. As tobacco remains a threat to the health of the world’s population, intensified efforts to control its use are needed. http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1812960
WHO 2014 Key facts:
Tobacco kills up to half of its users.
Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Unless urgent action is taken, the annual death toll could rise to more than eight million by 2030.
Nearly 80% of the world’s one billion smokers live in low- and middle-income countries. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/
Can Steve or anyone else see any relevance to this matter with human psychology, cognitive science, the existence or not of “denier campaigns”, and today’s AGW/CC issues?
Thomas O'Reillysays
#243 Kevin McKinney, that was very upbeat positive scenario. 8^)
Then you say: “Well, it’s still pretty strongly dependent upon what does or does not get done by way of mitigation.”
About the only thing science/maths can predict with any degree of accuracy is the movement of the bodies in space.
Any other kind of “prophecy”, including energy use, sea level rise, the AMOC, Antarctic & Greenland Ice sheet loss, is no better than Tarot cards or a Psychic’s advice. Yet this is what climate science keeps attempting, and they wonder why so many take it with a grain of salt.
Human beings cannot operate nor make rational judgments under such circumstances.
But humans can understand logic and reason based on the present state of affairs. When it is presented with clarity and proof.
Then 99/100 the collective responds rationally, with empathy for their fellow man, and acts accordingly.
That means with AGW/CC that 400ppm CO2 is the maximum, that it must not go higher, but must be driven back down to 350ppm, and later to under 300ppm. All the science in the world needed to prove this is the only rational humane option already exists. Navel gazing with “Climate Science Tarot readings” if the above is not acted upon, is a suicidal death wish.
It negates REALITY. It is an error of judgment. It is doing the wrong thing. It is counter-productive. For 25 years now it has proven itself not to work very well at all.
30,000 Climate scientists declaring rising CO2e emissions dangerous life-threatening Pollution and condemning all that causes this, the scientific knowledge already demands CO2e to be Globally Regulated and Controlled according to hard science and monitoring immediately.
Maybe that might make a difference to the people and to the politicians too. BAU sure hasn’t. BP is now spending $12 Billion in Egypt to exploit new gas oil reserves.
“Theories” based on flaky data about Sea levels in 2100 etc., is counter-productive and a bad joke.
Psychology and Cognitive Sciences already prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is so.
DPsays
one thing is that although there is a cooling south east of Greenland North West Europe has gotten warmer. If the Gulf Stream was slowing surely the cold area would be bigger.
Re “Ray” at 178
I don’t know who you are Ray but you seem like a man who wants to talk straight and isn’t averse to speaking his mind and telling complete strangers just how wrong and laughable they are. Other readers will hopefully therefore forgive me if I reply directly to “Ray” in a tone that he seems to prefer.
Ray, firstly, just at human level, you are very rude man. But hey, that’s how some people operate so I’ll live with it.
Secondly, I get the impression that you consider yourself to be learned, well educated and all knowing – but, as often the case, you fail to see the wood for the trees.
My original involvement, and the only views I have presented have been to do with the “debate” about climate change and the occasional “disconnect” between the actual facts surrounding a particular issue – and the general public’s perception of that particular point. I note that at least one person “got” my point – Keith at #168 above.
Then you wrote this:
“Adding Arctic and Antarctic sea ice together is absurd on the face of it. When Arctic sea ice is melting, Antarctic sea ice is of course freezing. It’s Winter there ferchrissake. And likewise when Antarctic sea ice is melting. You have just constructed a metric that will only be minimally sensitive to global changes”.
… I’ll tell what is laughable Ray. Laughable is when you completely fail to understand the simple graph that you are looking at – and then you compound the error by publicly attempting to ridicule me based entirely on your complete lack of understanding!?!
Look at the graph again Ray at: http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif and try and work out what the graph shows in terms of trends for Arctic and Antarctic sea ice area levels over the last 25 years – then come back to me. (clue: winter and summer have got nothing to with the 25 year trend).
To any other readers that have not got bored and gone away – I apologise.
we should have mentioned that we are a climate science blog
=================
Watts has won science blog of the year 3 times with huge traffic volumes. You could and have done much worse than to hire him. It is tough times for climate science. China will be increasing its emissions until at least 2030. India much longer. The developed nations are running huge deficits and will not be able to afford the $100 billion a year promised to the Climate Fund. The new Congress will move to cut off climate funding and the UN poll has climate change dead last in the list of people’s priorities. The main players at Real Climate are bailing and you are in need of new leadership. Watts is your man.
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/PDFs/Plate_Climatology-Dec-10-2014.pdf
“In general increased global tectonic activity equates to more faulting and crustal plate movement which leads to more global heat release from faults, fractures and volcanoes that are more active.
Altered heat input equates to climate change.
This effect has been largely hidden from scientific investigation because the primary heat release is within under-explored / monitored deep ocean regions; deep ocean rifts (major faults separating blocks of the earth’s surface), fumaroles, traverse faults, and other fault types. Ocean temperatures, densities, and chemical compositions are altered by this varying tectonic activity. The “altered oceans” then influence or drive climate changes and climate related events.”
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/global-warming-plate-climatology-theory.html
“Until recently vertical segregation of the deep oceans was argued as a reason for not including the deep
oceans and deep ocean floor in climate models. This notion has changed in the last few years as
observed natural climate variations were difficult to explain based solely on atmospheric models. This
essentially opened up Pandora’s Box. It is now fair game to include all deep ocean phenomenons in
climate models. We completely agree with this change, and believe it strengthens our long-standing
contention that geological influences from deep ocean floor surfaces such as; plate junctures, transverse
faults, volcanically active areas, etc. should be considered in climate modeling.”
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/images/PDFs/Plate_Climatology-Dec-10-2014.pdf
We must “obey” the certainty of “science” not the “belief” of conservative hating “believers” and until science says its “proven”, it’s not “proven”. How close to the point of no return from unstoppable warming will science take us before they put aside their scientific method and say a “threat to the planet” is “proven” and something beyond 33 years of “could be” the end of days.
@#70 spilgard
‘flogging,shopworn,silliness’and #63 jgnfld with ‘disastrous near zero’
Could terminology be one of the reasons why this site is closing and yet Jo Nova has an increase in traffic of 20%,Anthony Watts remains far and away number 1 and ‘climate’ doesn’t make it into the top ten science press releases for 2014.We know it’s not the science because that’s settled.
I just wanted to say I have almost no respect for this wesbite. The only person who is worth reading here is Gavin Schmidt.
Here is a currrent portrait of global sea ice:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/global-sea-ice-area-second-highest-on-record/
Where are you ?
I could say….. some degrees below initial “prudent assumptions” …. as a good start.
Less numerous and less arrogant ?
But still far from science…..
Paywalled. What do you say to
https://class.coursera.org/origins-001/forum/thread?thread_id=304#comment-4909
“Walter Paul· 3 hours ago
Edward — you can find my name in the the APS (American Physical Society) directory. I have no idea what your credentials are, nor do I really care. The debate should be about the science. There is a wide range of possible climate sensitivity in the peer reviewed literature. There is even an argument as to whether it makes sense to define a climate sensitivity for a system that is non-linear and chaotic. I am not arguing dogmatically that it is impossible that increasing CO2 will lead to problems down the road. It just seems very unlikely based on my evaluation of the scientific evidence. Can you see any possibility that you are wrong, and CO2 does not represent an imminent danger requiring the expenditure of 100’s of billions of dollars per year just to get started? Have you seen cost estimates and strategies for getting away from fossil fuels? Many Trillions.
The Argo floats indeed purport to measure an increase in ocean temperature. The scale is usually reported in units of 10^22 Joules. Why do you suppose they use a scale like this instead of telling us an average temperature change? Because the dT would be on a 0.01 C scale — which is ZERO to within the error. In other worlds, this claim is speculative at best.”
Few people care about sea level rise. Please do an article about future food.
Climate change is a religion. If we do nothing about it, we go to “hell.” If we do something about it, we go to “heaven.”
The only reason 2014 is ”the hottest” is because: they intend next year in Paris to put the last nail on the coffin of the truth!
2014 is not warmer OR colder than any other year!!! Here are the proofs ” beyond any reasonable doubt” : https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/
#220 Russell: “While is awash with water, not superfluid helium, air and water in contact are thermodynamically driven towards becoming isothermal, and automatically mixed by the density changes that ensue from daytime heating and nghtime cooling, resulting in a mixed layed100 meters deep.”
This is a bit garbled, so difficult to understand. But what you say about thermal diffusivity interests me. Can you point us to something in the literature that describes how thermal diffusivity operates in the context of global warming?
@232 MARodger
“The confusion presented here is that “the warming process” under discussion is not exclusively heating the atmosphere. The vast majotiy of this heating process is heating the oceans.”
Yes, but since we’re talking about the greenhouse effect, then the heating must make its first appearance in the atmosphere, no? And the atmosphere heats up much more quickly than the oceans, no? So there is going to be some sort of time lag between the two, no? You seem to be implying that there isn’t any or that the difference is negligible, and that puzzles me, since the ocean is so vast and water heats up so much more slowly than air.
The 21 year “lag” I mentioned is just a thought, not really even a hypothesis, so don’t take it all that seriously. But there has to have been some sort of lag, of some length — the heat couldn’t possibly have pervaded the ocean instantaneously. As far as I can tell, my question has nothing to do with the difference between surface air temp and radiative forcing but if you say so, fine I’ll accept that I’m confused in that respect. As I see it, what puzzles me is the difference between SAT and OHC and the time lag from the former to the latter. And if there is none, then after reading your explanation I have to admit I’m still in the dark.
#233, 235, 236, 237
I’m grateful for your lessons on basic climate science pertaining to the greenhouse effect and heat flow, but as far as I can tell none of these posts address the issue of OHC lag. I’ve been asking how it can be claimed that the current state of the ocean reflects the current state of the atmosphere given the time needed for the ocean to heat, which is reportedly a matter of decades.
#256 “Which “climate scientists” describe the claim that the “missing heat” is in the oceans as “Ocean ate my global warming”?
#257 “Scientists? Cite their work. I think you’re misled or misleading us.
‘oogle the phrase “Ocean ate my global warming” — that’s straight out of Watts’s blog.”
Here’s what I wrote:
“And before I start hearing again about how stupid my questions are and how little I understand about climate science, this is in fact a concern expressed by many of the climate scientists I’ve been reading and listening to. Most of them simply dismiss theories of that sort as crude attempts to get around the “fact” of the hiatus. I’ve seen that referred to as the “Ocean ate my global warming” theory, as though it was some sort of excuse. And I must say, it sounds like some sort of “just so” story.”
You might need to read that more than once, because obviously some posting here have serious deficiencies in that department. NO where do I claim to have found “The Ocean ate my global warming” anywhere in the scientific literature.
When you read with bias aforethought, seeing what you expect to see and conveniently glossing over details that might challenge your preconceptions, then it’s all too easy to jump to the wrong conclusion.
Regarding the question I keep asking, that never seems to find an answer:
From what I’ve been reading here, and I hope it’s not typical, what passes for science among many climate scientists is more or less at the Popular Mechanics level. I’m getting lots of technical descriptions of what happens in the air, the sea and the land, and on a purely technical level that’s impressive. But not convincing, because not one single “expert” posting here seems capable of moving from purely technical description and methodology to logical evaluation of what any of it actually means. Which is where the real science comes in.
#266 MartinJB
Thank you thank you thank you, Martin. This is the type of response I was hoping for from the beginning. And I very much appreciate the parallel with Plato’s Meno — you’re telling me what I already knew without my knowing it. Excellent. And you are explaining the logic behind the mechanics, which is what I was hoping for.
I’d like to remind you, however, that I did admit at least twice that I could be getting this wrong, and that I would welcome it if someone set me straight. You have almost done that. Almost. But there is one more step.
Consider a coal fired power plant in India, spewing huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere (along with a lot of other crap we need not get into at the moment) over a 24 hour period. Now as I understand it, the consensus is that this carbon is destined to heat up both the atmosphere and the oceans, via the greenhouse effect, by producing an imbalance, as you’ve described it.
Now I’m going to ask you how long it takes for the imbalance produced by this CO2 added to the atmosphere during this 24 hour period to propagate into the atmosphere and from there to the oceans in the manner that is being claimed — presumably warming both. Please don’t say “instantaneously,” because nothing is instantaneous, not even the propagation of light.
So what I’d like to see, first of all, is a mathematical formula for computing the time needed for the effect to complete itself, and a rough estimate of what that total duration might be. If it’s within one or two years, then I’ll be satisfied and reward you with a star.
#275 Thanks, Meow. But I thought that was more or less what I was puzzling over. If it takes decades for the ocean to accumulate all that heat, then the present temperature of the ocean would be a reflection of forces that were initiated decades ago, and may no longer be in play.
#276 BPL: “Victor, in statistics there is a precisely defined meaning of trend. A time series exists a “trend” if the slope of the series regressed on elapsed time is statistically significant. By that definition, there is a very definite trend upward of surface temperatures since at least 1850. It isn’t really something subject to personal opinion.”
No, but it IS subject to objective observation. The goal of statistics is to approximate reality in a numerical form, making it subject to computation. By producing statistics, in other words, you produce grist for the computational mill, which enables you to build on your statistics by using the usual mathematical tools. However, statistics is NOT in itself a royal road to the truth (or if you prefer, reality) and it is very dangerous to let oneself see it as such. It is a computational tool, not a lens.
One example, as I’m sure you realize, is the fact that you’ll get different trend lines depending on the chosen endpoints. To decide on the most appropriate endpoints, you must already have a pretty good idea of your expected trend ahead of time. And if you don’t get the expected trend, then it is all too tempting to change those endpoints until you do.
Bottom line: there is a statistical trend and there is an observational trend. Each has its purpose, each has its strengths and its weaknesses. Each is valid depending on the circumstances. As I see it, a clear trend should be evident to the eye. If statistics is necessary to “reveal” a trend, then the statistical trend is not enough. More evidence is needed to determine whether the trend actually represents something real.
#274 Ray: “You say you are here to debate rather than learn about climate science. Problem is that the purpose of this website is precisely to teach interested laymen about climate science. It is specifically not intended to be a debating society.”
Funny, but I thought I was doing the teaching. Rowdy classroom, for sure.
:-)
Seriously, when I first appeared on this site it was to shamelessly promote my blog and invite people reading here to check it out and comment THERE, not here. Some did go there and a heated debate ensued — but most preferred to remain here and they were the ones who started the debate, not I. I am innocent.
#273 KeefeAndAmanda
Seems to me what you are describing re the stove and freezer comes under the heading “chaos theory.” Cause and effect relations become very problematic in that context. And yes, the weather certainly comes under this heading. And certainly many aspects of climate are subject to chaotic forces. So yes you have a point. (For example, take the “butterfly effect,” where the flapping of a butterfly’s wings could, theoretically, precipitate a tornado. No one could possibly trace the cause to the butterfly.)
But this would be your problem, not mine, because if you want to establish CO2 emissions as a cause of dangerous heating in a chaotic context, then how do you do it? If the situation is too chaotic (i.e., out of control and unpredictable) then not only won’t you have a clear correlation but you will have no basis for distinguishing cause from effect either.
But this is all purely theoretical. Proponents of AGW insist that there is in fact a correlation, only that it’s not obvious and requires a certain amount of statistical massaging to emerge. And we’ve already been over that.
“Victor, that part of your whole comment at 259 that uses the term “trend” takes as an assumption a fundamental rejection of a large area of important mathematics . . .”
No, not at all. See my reply to #276 BPL, above. In short, statistics is a computational tool, not an observational tool. A graph enables us to see a trend in the data (assuming it is there). Statistics enables us to compare the data with other data in quantitative terms and perform computations. As such it is extremely valuable. But any “trend” it shows us should not be taken at face value unless it can be verified by eye.
Your mathematical example is interesting, but its important to remember that a mathematical trend is very different from a trend in the real world. Now let’s assume that during January a certain city received progressively more snowfall each day, which tells us there was a clear upward trend. But samples of snow depth were taken only once every few days, and thanks to intermediate melting at various times, the underlying trend became obscured, to the point that, on a graph, it looked as though there were no trend at all. Would a linear regression be capable of revealing the underlying trend? I don’t see how. But if the linear regression is incapable of revealing what really happened, then it might just as easily produce a downward trend, falsely implying a decline in snowfall during that month.
“Finally, I note that you have not acknowledged the falsification I gave in 231 of your claim that all the energy of the ocean heat content increase since 2000 was first sitting in the atmosphere in 1979.”
That was not my claim. I am puzzled by the question of how all the heat “missing” from the atmosphere since 1998 could suddenly find itself in the ocean within a year or two.
How about some of the smarter ones of you who have been wasting huge amounts of brain cells putting down Victor try and allay my concerns raised in #42 (the answer!!) and 58 and 89. The take-home point of Gavin’s essay is that we are still basically on trend, but that is only because the data has been changed. Can’t you see how that looks to those outside your group?
it shall take some tenths of thousands of years before the solar corona disappears again so we are not freezing in the near future. note that solar wind counts for only 20 deg. Celsius of our climate while solar irradiance for another 250 deg Celsius in total. without sun we would be at around absolut zero.
I think you go a bit too easy on this issue. There is near perfect linear correlation between adjustments from raw to final temperatures for USHCN and the rise of the CO2 content in the atmosphere. This is demonstrated very clearly in the article: https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2015/01/05/ncdc-breaks-their-own-record-for-data-tampering-in-2014/
Scientific minds should feel inclined to take that very seriously and start asking: How can it be?
A few thoughts: UN IPCC Official Admitted in 2010: ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’
My backyard in Vermont is full of stones left over from the global warming at the end of the last ice age. Stone age men at fault.
Medieval Warming Period.
Hockey Stick Fraud.
Gore et al are so committed to stemming global warming they refuse to fly on commercial jets.
And you wonder that most of us recognize a fraud when we see it?
Reality illustrates the truth, despite those that are detached from it.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/
Funny that the head of the Climate Research Unit was caught in his emails saying he disbelieved the Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Periods based on his “gut feelings”…since when was science done based on “gut feelings”?
It is funny that whenever man-made climate change is discussed the alarmist are reluctant to bring up how earth’s past climate has change drastically without man’s input. Something smell’s fishy.
http://prolerevolt.com/2015/02/22/climate-change-policies-more-harm-than-good/
This article sums up the author’s scientific incompetence. For someone who adheres to the most absurd theory of runaway manmade global warming, this article takes the biscuit. Does the author realise just how out of touch with empirical evidence and the general public he is? Rather like the nutters who claimed HIV was a sexually transmitted virus that would decimate the heterosexual population in the west, the author clings similarly to the patently absurd idea that man made C02 controls the earth’s climate. Oh dear. You’re the joke Mr. Schmidt, not Willy Soon.
N. Hemisphere climate is under control of polar and sub-tropical jet-streams, whereby the long term zonal-merdional positioning of jet streams depends on the extent and strength of three primary cells (Pollar, Ferral and Hadley).
Since the equatorial temperature changes little, it is the Arctic temperature which moves jet streams latitudinal location.
It is true that the Arctic temperatures are not particularly accurate, but trend along the polar circle (where Pollar & Ferral cells meet) is an acceptable representation, in that respect it is correct that Dr. Schmidt draws attention to the Arctic temperatures.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF1.htm
Strong correlation between the Arctic temperature anomaly and averaged strength of the geomagnetic field (R2>0.8) is not necessarily proof of causation, but it is stronger than what Dr. Soon proposes, on the other hand Dr. Schmidt (and a certain Dr. Svalgaard solar scientist – Stanford University) may wish to discredit it.
A ‘little’ matter of mechanism
Solar magnetic activity reaches the Earth’s poles in form of geomagnetic storms. NASA: “a two-hour average sub-storm releases total energy of five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake”
This is in form of the electric current ionising upper layers of the atmosphere, whereby the atmospheric flow is affected by the strength of the magnetic field (Lorentz law). Assuming that the sun varies little over centuries, the Earth’s field (i.e. magnetospheres shielding) is not constant (currently loosing its strength); weaker the magnetic field, stronger the solar incursion, stronger the effect on the climate.
The above can be clearly seen in the graph linked above.
“…We focused on the Northern Hemisphere and the role played by two climate oscillations known as the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation or “AMO” (a term I coined back in 2000, as recounted in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars)…”
(Just my opinion) seems to me this is a rather useless addendum of content for this piece. It’s also a risky move if it’s not actually true. (see Williams, Brian).
Do my eyes deceive me? http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1994Natur.367..723S
Why bother including it at all? Whether you coined the actual phrase or not is immaterial to the points you make. It kind of sounds self-aggrandizing. I recall inside-baseball arguments among the old-school meteorologists in the Boston TV market about who really first coined the term “partly cloudy”. Does it even matter?
Ni, there isn’t any ”pause” because it wasn’t any warming before – therefore: it cannot ”pause” The truth is already known, game is over; read the ”Holly Grail in Climatology”: https://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com/2014/07/12/cooling-earth/
Important aspects of AMO variability ignored by climate models:
North Atlantic decadal and Multidecadal Oscillation AMO (de-trended N. Atlantic SST) can be successfully explained and numerically represented by solar- geomagnetic interactions.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/GSCp.gif
N. Hemisphere’s climate is under control of the polar and sub-tropical jet-streams, whereby the long term zonal-merdional positioning of jet streams depends on the extent and strength of three primary cells (Pollar, Ferrel and Hadley).
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream//global/images/jetstream3.jpg
Since the equatorial temperature changes little, it is the Arctic temperature which moves jet streams latitudinal location.
Solar magnetic activity reaches the Earth’s poles in form of geomagnetic storms. NASA: “a two-hour average sub-storm releases total energy of five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10^14) Joules. That’s approximately equivalent to the energy of a magnitude 5.5 earthquake”
This is in form of the electric current ionising upper layers of the atmosphere, whereby the atmospheric flow is affected by the changes in the resultant magnetic field (Lorentz law). The Earth’s field (i.e. magnetospheres shielding) is not constant (the internal oscillations are due to the cores differential rotation – see J. Dickey, JPL).
The strength the solar incursions is modulated by the interactions of two fields, since it is strongest at the poles, effect on the polar vortex and subsequently the Arctic’s jet stream would be strongest.
Geomagnetic effect is also clearly demonstrated in the Arctic temperatures up-trend and its multidecadal oscillations with correlation factor R2>0.8.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AT-GMF1.gif
15, Response to Gavin’s responses.
Response to response 1: Do you really want to play semantics – you knew and know exactly what I meant. Mann made bold predictions of an immediate future warming climate and the IPCC selected certain climate models, by whatever criteria, to aggregate predicted future temperature trends leading to dire scenarios. However, despite repeated lower IPCC revisions, the observed temperature still does not match the predictions (for one or two decades now). This can only mean one of four things: 1) A tremendous amount of “forced” energy is “missing” and cannot be measured or 2) The observed temperature(s)is/are not accurate because the temperature sensors are inaccurate (i.e., run cool), or 3) The climate models run warm for whatever reason, or 4) The observed temperature is correct. If 1, 2, 3 is correct, then this is correctable. However, if 4 is correct, anyone who incorrectly or stubbornly believes 1, 2, or 3 could be termed a climate “denier”.
Response to response 2: If it was wrong before he (Soon) even started, then we shall know very soon will we not? But could “being wrong before it even started” be said of Mann predictions and multiple climate models, and therefore the various IPCC projections? At least Soon’s “model” has not been tested for any length of time unlike others. If a tremendous surge in temperature is seen, then Soon will be discredited. However, if we do not see a tremendous surge in temperature, others will be discredited.
I don’t understand. If there’s no pause in the warming, why are so many scientists coming up with theories to explain it? (eg heat lost to deep ocean).
#49, goldmund52
What he said.
RE:”No, climate change is not experiencing a hiatus. No, there is not currently a “pause” in global warming.”
Kevin Trenberth, among other prominent climatologists, has not only acknowledged the ‘pause’ but has explicitly stated it was expected.
I take it that there isn’t a consensus on this, which is understandable, however I’m wondering what data &/or information you have (that they don’t) that leads you to your conclusion that there is/has been no pause/hiatus?
#52 “Important caution there — hard argument ain’t easy.”
Cant’t agree. Arguing is as easy as eating mothers pie. It’s reason, and logic, and being able to operate above bias and ego and personal beliefs that is all
but impossibly hard.
#51 Robert Way – your’re wasting your time mate, with both presenting your views (being treated respectfully, ever – Disagreement is NOT PERMITTED) and trying to manage the recapture spam system. Think of of it as dealing wiht the public service bureaucracy – they are designed to send people off the edge regularly with frustration and hopefully give up never to return. Keep it up and you too will end up in the Borehole – that is the decade long mentality at RC. They are RIGHT 24/7, everyone else is an idiot.
Being right is often far more important than learning; truth or greater wisdom; let alone winning the long term Policy and Values War using science and protecting lives of REAL People which are at stake… RealClimate is always more important than anything or anyone. That’s not an idle opinion, is a provable historical facts.
To RC thanks for posting my comments about Mike Mann’s and his communication style one on one and public presentations and accompanying urls to highly qualified scientists, including the worlds leading COGNITIVE SCIENTIST bar none. NOT!
All That, and the RC website is more times than not technically dysfunctional.
HTTP websites and web servers have been going since the 1990s – except repeatedly at RC. Would be fascinating to hear the explanations of “scientists” about that.
This is from someone who actually accepts the science of AGW/CC in general, not some crazed ideological denier nutter; and a webmaster who has direct personal experience plus knowledge in the field of “website tech”.
In a word? RC is “Painful”
The peak warming of the latest millennial solar cycle occurred in about 2003.Rational forecasts of future climate cannot be made without taking this into account.Trends should be plotted up to and post 2003 to see what is really going on.see
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
For forecasts of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling which should bring us back to the depths of another little ice age at about 2650 see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
1. The Steinman Mann Miller paper goes a very long way around to rediscover the 60 year cycle so obvious in a cursory glance at the temperature data. The authors still ignore, as do all the IPCC warming forecasts,the equally obvious 960 year natural solar cycle. The IPCC projections are more or less nonsensical – exactly like taking the temperature trend form say Jan – July and projecting it forwards in a straight line for 10 years or more.
The peak warming of the latest millennial solar cycle occurred in about 2003.Rational forecasts of future climate cannot be made without taking this into account. Trends should be plotted up to and post 2003 to see what is really going on.see
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1980.1/plot/rss/from:1980.1/to:2003.6/trend/plot/rss/from:2003.6/trend
For forecasts of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling which should bring us back to the depths of another little ice age at about 2650 see
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2014/07/climate-forecasting-methods-and-cooling.html
Re- Comment by wili — 6 Mar 2015 @ 11:45 AM, ~#122
The article that initiated this thread clarifies the fact that, although surface temperatures are increasing a little slower than expected, global warming is increasing apace because the extra heat went into the ocean. It seems to me that we should not claim that global warming will accelerate in the future (come back to haunt us) when the various oscillations shift to the opposite phase and cause surface temperatures to increase a little faster and the ocean to warm a little slower. This is the same reasoning used to hype the, so called, pause.
Steve
Proof recent temperarure variation is natural http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/2015/03/06/proof-recent-temperature-trends-are-not-abnormal/
#121 HR re the “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation” AMO.
I think I can see the cause and the solution to this problem of climate scientists receiving due credit. Like other scientific endeavors there is not enough “Doppler Effects” or “PASTEURizations” or “Hubble Space Telescopes”.
What could solve it is incorporating Registered Trademarks. Such as “Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation TM”. Registered TMs can be easily searched for who owns them.
Or, of course, to call AMO the “Mann Effect” instead?
Or instead of discussing the cause of confusing climate communications (the CCCC tm) to refer to it generically as the “IPCC Effect”? 8^)
This is my first posting here, and as such I’ll make it brief and simple.
I’ve been studying the climate change issue, and as part of that effort I look at websites on both sides, and read some papers. A skeptic site that I see referred to here and elsewhere as “WUWT” has highlighted a January 2014 workshop held by the American Physical Society.
It was a moderated discussion among six noted scientists, three on each side. The skeptics seem to have given the APS workshop high marks for framing the issue in a way that articulately presented their arguments, and the arguments that they oppose.
This site is obviously very much in favor of the Anthropogenic Global Warming hypothesis. My question is to anyone here who’s aware of the APS workshop. Do you think it framed the two sides accurately?
A request in advance: I react very badly to bumper stickers, so please give me a straight, literal answer. Thanks.
Stefen,
In this article you state “the weakness of the [AMOC] flow after 1975 is unique in more than a thousand years”. The Rossby et al paper (referenced @30) shows with very accurate measurements no slowing of the AMOC over the last 20 years, or half the time period of your claim from 1975. You also claim to Sven @30 that Rossby et al doesn’t apply since it is different time periods, yet these two periods overlap half the time.
Do you believe your proxy data clearly shows the AMOC slowed from 1975 to 1995, or would you consider the accurate measurements of Rossby et al from 1995 to be more indicative of the real behavior of the AMOC across this entire time span (i.e., no slowing since 1975)? To me, it is doubtful that the AMOC experienced “unique weakness” from 1975 that stopped in 1995, mainly because the momentum of the AMOC is enormous.
TIA,
TonyL
Steve, do people still smoke cigarettes?
I prefer to stick to climate issues.
Kevin, CO2e is still increasing exponentially over the forward estimates of energy use. Fossil Fuels increase in real terms from now to 2040, all things being equal, which includes a massive uptake of renewables and a successful COP21 meeting.
By 2040 this means CO2 @ ~475ppm.
Imagine beaming up every single AGW/CC denier activist from the planet to the Enterprise right now. What would that 475ppm now be as a forecast for 2040?
What changes in our global energy use and growing consumer societies as a result of no more deniers?
What has replaced the now out of service Nuclear Reactors in 2040 in the USA, as just one classic example? Sure, all hypothetical and rhetorical questions, not needing of an answer.
#78 Stefan “You cannot give a certain atmospheric CO2 ppm limit for an AMOC shutdown,”
To borrow a phrase from M Mann, you’re missing the point here Stefan. Neither I nor the Ward ref were giving “a certain ppm” for an AMOC shutdown. I have no idea how you get that idea from what I wrote.
Re: “There are practically no paleo analogues of the fast global warming experiment we are conducting now.” Very true. I wan’t suggesting otherwise. So again I have no idea why you would say that in response.
It’s the global warming experiment itself that obviously needs to be shutdown. Isn’t that the only real problem anyone can do anything about?
It’s irrational, to me, to be discussing an AMOC shutdown, and it’s illogical to be researching how soon that might happen too, when it is already known that to get to such a point means certain death. If not for all, at least for most. And
there certainly will not be any NASA/GISS or IPCC still operating for decades before those kinds of things start happening either.
Isn’t holding CO2 @ 400ppm the only rational and ethical response to AGW/CC today based on existing scientific knowledge?
Do that and the Arctic sea ice, the AMOC, and sea level rise etc are no longer problems and no longer need researching or disclaimers made about the uncertainties up to 2100 anymore.
Counterproductive is anything that is more of an “obstacle” than a help in the achieving of a productive project or an objective.
Dictionary – counterproductive
tending to hinder or act against the achievement of an aim
Tending to hinder rather than serve one’s purpose.
thwarting the achievement of an intended goal;
tending to defeat one’s purpose.
tending to hinder the achievement of a goal
having the opposite of the desired effect.
Counterproductive norms: A situation that prevents a group, organization, or other collective entities from performing or accomplishing its originally stated function
Synonyms
harmful – causing or capable of causing harm;
If someone is allowed to present a “rhetorical argument” about smoking on these pages, then the response should also be allowed to address it. That’s only logical and also reasonable to do so.
#58 Steve “Thomas, I am curious. Don’t you think that societal attitudes about the fake tobacco/cancer controversy would have changed more quickly if there hadn’t been a corporate disinformation campaign?”
Post the “corporate disinformation campaign” people are still smoking. Global cigarette production continues to rise. 35 years after 1980 there are more smokers today than ever before.
Science Paper:
Results Global modeled age-standardized prevalence of daily tobacco smoking in the population older than 15 years decreased from 41.2% in 1980 to 31.1% in 2012 for men and from 10.6% to 6.2% for women.
Conclusions and Relevance Since 1980, large reductions in the estimated prevalence of daily smoking were observed at the global level for both men and women, but because of population growth, the number of smokers increased significantly. As tobacco remains a threat to the health of the world’s population, intensified efforts to control its use are needed.
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1812960
WHO 2014 Key facts:
Tobacco kills up to half of its users.
Tobacco kills nearly 6 million people each year. More than five million of those deaths are the result of direct tobacco use while more than 600 000 are the result of non-smokers being exposed to second-hand smoke. Unless urgent action is taken, the annual death toll could rise to more than eight million by 2030.
Nearly 80% of the world’s one billion smokers live in low- and middle-income countries. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs339/en/
Can Steve or anyone else see any relevance to this matter with human psychology, cognitive science, the existence or not of “denier campaigns”, and today’s AGW/CC issues?
#243 Kevin McKinney, that was very upbeat positive scenario. 8^)
Then you say: “Well, it’s still pretty strongly dependent upon what does or does not get done by way of mitigation.”
About the only thing science/maths can predict with any degree of accuracy is the movement of the bodies in space.
Any other kind of “prophecy”, including energy use, sea level rise, the AMOC, Antarctic & Greenland Ice sheet loss, is no better than Tarot cards or a Psychic’s advice. Yet this is what climate science keeps attempting, and they wonder why so many take it with a grain of salt.
Human beings cannot operate nor make rational judgments under such circumstances.
But humans can understand logic and reason based on the present state of affairs. When it is presented with clarity and proof.
Then 99/100 the collective responds rationally, with empathy for their fellow man, and acts accordingly.
That means with AGW/CC that 400ppm CO2 is the maximum, that it must not go higher, but must be driven back down to 350ppm, and later to under 300ppm. All the science in the world needed to prove this is the only rational humane option already exists. Navel gazing with “Climate Science Tarot readings” if the above is not acted upon, is a suicidal death wish.
It negates REALITY. It is an error of judgment. It is doing the wrong thing. It is counter-productive. For 25 years now it has proven itself not to work very well at all.
30,000 Climate scientists declaring rising CO2e emissions dangerous life-threatening Pollution and condemning all that causes this, the scientific knowledge already demands CO2e to be Globally Regulated and Controlled according to hard science and monitoring immediately.
Maybe that might make a difference to the people and to the politicians too. BAU sure hasn’t. BP is now spending $12 Billion in Egypt to exploit new gas oil reserves.
“Theories” based on flaky data about Sea levels in 2100 etc., is counter-productive and a bad joke.
Psychology and Cognitive Sciences already prove beyond reasonable doubt that this is so.
one thing is that although there is a cooling south east of Greenland North West Europe has gotten warmer. If the Gulf Stream was slowing surely the cold area would be bigger.