We have now updated the model-observations comparison page for the 2021 SAT and MSU TMT datasets. Mostly this is just ‘another dot on the graphs’ but we have made a couple of updates of note. First, we have updated the observational products to their latest versions (i.e. HadCRUT5, NOAA-STAR 4.1 etc.), though we are still using NOAA’s GlobalTemp v5 – the Interim version will be available later this year. Secondly, we have added a comparison of the observations to the new CMIP6 model ensemble.
As we’ve discussed previously, the CMIP6 ensemble contains a dozen models (out of ~50) with climate sensitivities that are outside the CMIP5 range, and beyond the very likely constraints from the observations. This suggests that comparisons to the observations should be weighted in some way. One reasonable option is to follow the work of Tokarska et al (2020) and others, and restrict the comparison to those models that have a transient climate response (TCR) that is consistent with observations. The likely range of TCR is 1.4ºC to 2.2ºC according to IPCC AR6, and so we plot both the mean and 95% spread over all all models (1 ensemble member per model) (grey) and the TCR-screened subset (pink).
These model simulations have only just been finished, and even though they only used observed boundary conditions (such as GHGs, aerosols, volcanoes and solar activity etc.) up until 2014, and scenarios thereafter (SSP2-4.5 in this figure), it is far too soon to say whether their projections have been validated or not. Additionally, the analysis of these models as an ensemble is only just beginning, and so there may be other methods for looking at this that are more useful.
For the longer term evaluation of this class of climate model, it’s useful to look at the earlier ensembles, such as CMIP3 (which were run almost two decades ago now!). They seem to be doing (surprisingly) well!
It’s perhaps important to remember why we maintain this archive. The point is not to claim that models are perfect or can’t be improved. Despite the impressive projections from the CMIP3 models seen above, the match to observations in CMIP6 is much better across a whole suite of important features (e.g. Orbe et al, 2020). However, we frequently see references to claims that models have never predicted anything successfully, or that such comparisons are rigged – frequently accompanied by misleading graphics that play games with the baselines, or hide the observational uncertainty, or don’t compare like-with-like. Our comparisons strive to be fair and since we have maintained them stably for many years, it should be clear that they aren’t being manipulated to adapt to changes in our understanding of the observational record.
In particular, the CMIP5 comparisons to the MSU/AMSU TMT records still show interesting discrepancies which remain a little enigmatic (even if the differences are not as large or as important as some people claim). For instance, it’s still not clear to what extent the specific internal variations of Pacific variability or the impact of inaccurate forcings or the uncertainties in parameterizing deep convection or stratospheric-tropospheric exchange, or further structural issues in the observations, or a combination of all, are responsible. These issues, and how to best to regard the CMIP6 ensemble, will be likely be more thoroughly explored in the coming months and years, and we will be able to tell, hopefully, how skillful the climate models are and hone our expectations for the future.
References
- K.B. Tokarska, M.B. Stolpe, S. Sippel, E.M. Fischer, C.J. Smith, F. Lehner, and R. Knutti, "Past warming trend constrains future warming in CMIP6 models", Science Advances, vol. 6, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaz9549
- C. Orbe, L. Van Roekel, .F. Adames, A. Dezfuli, J. Fasullo, P.J. Gleckler, J. Lee, W. Li, L. Nazarenko, G.A. Schmidt, K.R. Sperber, and M. Zhao, "Representation of Modes of Variability in Six U.S. Climate Models", Journal of Climate, vol. 33, pp. 7591-7617, 2020. http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-19-0956.1
Hi Gavin,
Always a pleasure to see these regular updates. These comparisons, in particular the one to the CMIP3 ensemble, might be even more compelling if accompanied by a simple graph showing assumed emissions or concentrations in the driving scenario and the historically observed ones.
Cheers
NB : I do not know how to phrase this so as not to come across as “snarky / overly cynical”, but note that while it is primarily labelled as “interesting / eyebrow raising” in my mind I do also classify it as “amusing” …
I agree that the (unadjusted) “CMIP3 (circa 2004)” graph is an impressive fit to the instrumental data records.
Why, then, does “CMIP5 (circa 2011)” require two graphs ?
1) A “forcing adjusted” version, and
2) A “[ forcing adjusted and ] using the blended SST/SAT product from the CMIP5 models produced by Cowtan et al (2015) instead of the pure SAT field” version
Using more technical language, why does the (older / obsolete) CMIP3 “ensemble mean + confidence interval” graph, with the common “Historical Data” emissions parameters used for all model runs only going up to 2000, not need “updates to reflect reality” to its forcing inputs … but the (newer / more up-to-date) CMIP5 one, with “Historical Data” both revised and updated to 2005, does ?
PS : Kudos for adding the “forcing adjusted” versions as dashed lines for “before and after” comparison purposes. All too often I go back to websites and find “updated / adjusted / homogenised” datasets have replaced the original projections / “Raw Data (V1)”.
There are multiple CMIP5 graphs because that was (and remains) the most studied ensemble (at least for the time being), and so we have options about what to plot. The issues addressed in those extra graphs – whether comparing SAT in a model is exactly the right thing to compare to the SAT/SST blend that the global observations, and whether the forcing data sets in CMIP5 were biased for some reason – are ones that people have thought about. We can illustrate the difference that it makes for the CMIP5 case. The SAT vs SAT/SST is relevant for CMIP3 and CMIP6 too, but as we can see is not a big factor. The forcing issue was specific to CMIP5, because that was more prescribed in CMIP5 than in CMIP3 and so any biases affected the whole ensemble. CMIP3 was a little looser (hence the wider spread over time) and there isn’t evidence of any systematic bias in the forcing. It’s not clear (yet) if there are sufficient issues in the CMIP6 forcing to make a difference (at this point I don’t think so – other than the COVID-related changes in 2020), – gavin
I’m impressed. Pretty damn transparent for folks who know that lots of people see transparency as a soft pitch that should be lined right back at the pitcher’s head.
I have an observation of the graphs in the article made as a lay person and would appreciate feedback from anyone. The actual warming trend seems to be in the middle range of predictions, suggesting climate sensitivity MIGHT also be in the middle range of predictions (quantity of warming for doubling of CO2), thus “medium climate sensitivity” maybe around 3 degrees. However sea level rise appears to be tracking towards the UPPER range of predictions (from what I have read) and we have concerns about a relatively short term destabilisation of the west antarctic ice sheet in the media recently, and we see weather extremes becoming alarmingly more extreme, perhaps more than previously anticipated.
Does all this suggest that climate sensitivity might be in the middle, but the way the weather and ice sheets respond to that level of warming and sensitivity is greater than previously anticipated? Putting it another way weather and ice sheet behaviour is very sensitive to even small temperature changes more so than previously thought. Is there any formal science on all that?
I tend to agree. Normally, climate sensitivity is defined as how many degrees the global mean surface temperature will rise, when the preindustrial CO2-level in the troposphere (280 ppmv) is doubled (560 ppmv). The climate modelling tries to calculate how big this sensitivity is, but is that possible? I have my doubts. The reason for that is that we don’t know any periods in the geological record, where the CO2-level rose nearly so fast as it has in the last hundred years. Periods of volcanic activity has burned a lot of oil, coal and gas before, fx. in the late permian around 252 million years ago. But that took tens of thousands of years. We know that we have now already in only hundred years burned an amount of fossil fuels big enough to put the level of CO2 back to what it hasn’t been for millions of years (calculations I have seen say between 15 and 25 million years). Other calculations say that the burning now is around fifteen times faster than during the late permian. How can we possibly know how the earth system will react to such a chock, when we don’t know any parallells from the past?
Of course we can monitor what has been going on until now since the 1880s, but can we be sure that this will continue in the same way, gradually, in the next decades? No. *That is just something we presume*. But a lot of research seems to imply that some of the big ecosystems on earth are now on the verge of collapse, the rainforests, the seas etc. We know for sure, that the meltdown of the great icesheets during the late period of the last ice age wasn’t a smooth and gradual process. There were sudden jumps and reversals (like the Younger Dryas), fx. does some evidence from ice cores on Greenland point to parts of the global winds being drastically altered during just a few years time around 12400 BP, even if temperatures weren’t changing much.
I think political pressure on the IPCC etc. makes it very difficult to get much serious discussion of this. There is what some researchers have called “an optimistic bias”. The consensus tends to weigh towards the optimistic scenarios.
Re: Karsten V. Johansen 5 FEB 2022
I think that you may have conflated different issues – the sensitivity of the climate with the sensitivity of major ecosystems, and steady state vs the rate of an increase.
Somebody may correct me, but I thought models of sensitivity to 2xCO2 do not simulate the transition from the past to the future, but the difference between the 2xCO2 and 1xCO2 worlds once both of them are in a steady state.
If this is correct then if the real world hits 560ppm, it WON’T BE immediately AS WARM (climate) as the 2xCO2 steady state simulation- because even though pCO2 reached 560ppm, in the real world temperature would LAG behind CO2 (thermal inertia, and potential feedbacks haven’t been played entirely yet)
In case of the ecosystems instead of climate – it’s a different story – here the faster the change the worse for the ecosystem because the less time they have to adapt, and adaptation takes time (either for evolutionary adaptation to increased temp. or for moving to higher latitudes/altitudes)
.
And even here the impact of acidification (quickly following the CO2) would be stronger than the effect warming (since this one lags behind CO2).
In my opinion a relevant issue for scientific community is to understand why CMIP6 projections match to observations is much better on many important features and at the same time is definitely worse in comparison to CMPI3 regarding average global surface temperature trend.
Takeaway for me: That not one model but a whole subset of CMIP6 models shows a similar deviation from observations remains strange & I’m looking forward to see it explained (in ways I can understand it).
Can someone explain why the observed temperature anomaly is different in the two graphs?
[Response: Top one is ºC, bottom is ºF. I like to mix it up sometimes… – gavin]
Gavin,
I understand…. I always used to say “I did it to see if you students were paying attention”.
“When you characterize racism, or rejection/ignoring of scientific reasoning and facts, as specific properties of individuals, you are missing the point. These people are exhibiting a “normal” aspect of human behavior, in response to their status situation.” – Zebra
You haven’t at all made the case the America’s decent into ignorance and madness is “normal human behavior”, and even if it were it would still be equally destructive.
Most Americans are essentially innumerate. 25% of them refer to scientists and experts as “Ignorant eggheads” as taught by Faux News.
Continuing to try and convince people is expecting the same tactic will produce different results – AKA Madness.
So what is the plan when Republicans taken control of the U.S. Government as they are about to do?
Is there a plan? Is anyone thinking about this?
NOPE. Hence the last 30 years of failure.
Vendicar Decarian,
You have posted this comment on an unusual page. For future reference it just would have been better on the UV or FR pages.
“Most Americans are essentially innumerate. 25% of them refer to scientists and experts as “Ignorant eggheads” as taught by Faux News.”
Yes, but isn’t the reason for peoples categorisation of scientists as ignorant eggheads due to their jealousy and resentment towards the numeracy of scientists, and their acute realisation of their own low status? Which is what Zebra appears to be getting at? And its hard changing this because status seeking and awareness seems to be in our genes.
“So what is the plan when Republicans taken control of the U.S. Government as they are about to do? Is there a plan? Is anyone thinking about this? NOPE. Hence the last 30 years of failure.”
I share your frustrations. I live in New Zealand. The Democrats look like a good Party, but are not good long term strategic thinkers. Too much time is spent on infighting, fantasyland idealism, and worries about racial injustices 200 years ago. Not enough time is spent on a long term plan to counter the Republicans, or a short term plan to keep control of the senate. We have similar issues in NZ, so its interesting to see we are not alone.
However our equivalent of your Democrats Party has done a little better strategically because its very mindful of attracting the centre vote, the big bulge of people towards the centre of the binomial distribution, and has been practical in terms of policy, so not too doctrinaire. As a result is holds power more often than the Democrats and its policies don’t get so easily reversed. But we are far from perfect.
Vendicar: Is there a plan? Is anyone thinking about this?
NOPE. Hence the last 30 years of failure.
Of course there was and is a plan. Nobel Prize winning President Obama and VP Biden happily white-anted the entire UNFCCC system, gutted it’s core principles. That was the Plan – they succeeded.
Now Biden is in Office he is no better than Obama or Bill Clinton or the other Presidents.
When it comes to rational sane climate action the #1 recalcitrant is the United States ….. no one beats the USAs nefarious racist white-anting.
Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven’t We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104
Barack Obama has a nerve preaching about the climate crisis
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/nov/10/barack-obama-climate-crisis-cop26-speech
https://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/02/degrees-responsibility-climate-catastrophe-1.html
Weaponizing economics: Big Oil, economic consultants, and climate policy delay
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1947636
Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence
Laura Pulido https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132516646495
Climate Crises and the Creation of ‘Undeserving’ Victims
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/4/144/htm
Plunder in the Post-Colonial Era: Quantifying Drain from the Global South Through Unequal Exchange, 1960–2018
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59bc0e610abd04bd1e067ccc/t/60642e4f3bd29a1c5bb36e31/1617178208144/Hickel+et+al+-+Plunder+in+the+post-colonial+era.pdf
Africa worst hit by climate change impacts, COP26 told
( Yes Africa is mainly full of Black Africans but just call them “poor people”. )
Agriculture badly affected by low rainfall levels and high temperatures
https://www.nature.com/articles/d44148-021-00107-z
Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30196-0/fulltext
Black is White: Climate Deception becomes Orwellian By Frank Rotering | November 23, 2021
https://ecologicalsurvival.org/black-is-white-climate-deception-becomes-orwellian/
From Tokarska el al ( 2020): “Our results from CMIP6 observationally constrained TCR (of 1.60°C) …”. The figure of the mainpost was digitized and the OLS-Trends (1990…2021) were calculated:
https://i.imgur.com/5K5y29h.png
The “TCR screend Models” show a 20% overestimation of the warming trend, leading to the approach that the TCR is also 20% too high vs. GISS observations. The result gives a TCR of about 1.3, bolstering the estimates in Lewis/Curry (2018)?
One aspect of this is that model evaluation isn’t only about temperature. Climate stats have a lot of dimensions, and different ones may be important for different applications. So–just to make up an example–you might have a model that runs ‘too hot,’ but which does an excellent job of reproducing spatial precipitation patterns, or ENSO evolution, or–well, you get it.
(You may already know that, in which case apologies for a wasted attempt at explanation. But maybe it will be news to someone else, if so.)
Yes, I know that, no problem. However:
“…but which does an excellent job of reproducing spatial precipitation patterns, or ENSO evolution”
To my knowledge no GCM does an excellent job in these areas?
frankclimate,
You compare a couple of arbitrary OLS calculations and ask “The result gives a TCR of about 1.3, bolstering the estimates in Lewis/Curry (2018)?”
I think it would take a whole lot more to ‘bolster’ the efforts of Lewis & Curry to replace AGW with a big wobbly climate driven by some fictitious effect (like Wyatt’s Unified Wave Theory). I consider Lewis & Curry (2018) is poor analysis. It takes two points in climate history over a century apart and ignores all the bits in between because that would expose their ludicrous theorising for the foolishness it is. And cherry-picking a line from a paper like Tokarska el al ( 2020) won’t change that situation.
MA Rodgers: I can’t see any approach in L/C 18 “to replace AGW” with anything.when they find a TCR a bit lower (20%) then it’s estimated in Tokarska (2020) after observations taking into account.
It seems you confuse scientific papers with some poilitical attitude.
frankclimate,
I’m not sure where talk of “poilitical attitude” comes in, but now it’s here, there is little doubt that Nick Lewis runs a political path and Curry is on record saying “Trump’s election provided an opportunity for a more rational energy and climate policy.” So maybe I am indeed confusing Lewis & Curry (2018), thinking it is purporting to be a ” scientific paper” when it is actually an expression of “some political attitude.”
MA Rodger: I hope I can enlight you where “political attitude” came in. It was your sentence “…the efforts of Lewis & Curry to replace AGW with…”. I was expressing this out in my last response. AFAIK I discussed the 20% reduction of the TCR vs Tokaska et al (2020) when calculating the observed (GISS) GMST warming trends as ist was shown in the mainpost by Gavin and in my posted figure. This is without any doubt in coincidence with LC18 as you also know. Thereafter YOU made ridiculous statements about your estimated motivations of others, not bolstered by any objectivenes. I’m afraid you aren’t interested in any scientific discourse. So I’ll stop it.
I love this site. I have learned so much over the past decade plus. Thank you all.
You provide two plots of multiple data on different scales. For those of us in the lay community, that makes it difficult to evaluate the differences between the two plots and the conclusions made. Can you help me understand the comparison made and your clusions? Given my simplistic perspective I’d like to see CIMP3 plotted on the same scale as the CIMP6 mean and uncertainty.
I’m an engineer not a scientist. In my experience, simpler is usually better (CIMP3) but advanced methods usually provide smaller uncertainties (CIMP6?).
I’m struggling to understand this post. I’d appreciate any help.
Thanks.
Squidepus,
Putting aside the deg F v deg C issue, which I too initially found confusing because of lack of label, I’m not sure what you mean by “better” and “advanced” and “uncertainties”.
As I understand it, the climate scientists are exploring various approaches to the models in the hope of getting higher resolutions in space or time for a number of variables, including but not limited to GMST.
So we have different groups (more than previously) producing outputs; I don’t find it surprising that those outputs are different from each other, and may well do better with some variables than others.
Oops. The above comment was supposed to thread here…
Sorry.
I think contrails are a significant piece of uncertainty. In one place AR6 suggests a net forcing of 5W/m2 by cirrus clouds in total, with a contribution of 0.06W/m2 by contrails in 2019 (with a growing tendency till then). Most of contrail forcing will originate from aging contrails, which are hard to distinguish from natural cirrus both in tems of shape as particle size. So contrails would only contribute about 1% to total cirrus cloud cover.
As with Minnis et al (2004) even small increases in cirrus cloud cover should produce a strong forcing..
“For a 1% change in absolute cirrus coverage with τ = 0.33, the GCM yielded surface temperature changes (DTs ) of 0.438 and 0.588C over the globe and Northern Hemisphere, respectively”
The 1% figure quoted here means a one percentage point increase in the occurrence rate (like from 20% to 21%) and shall not be confused with the 1% contribution of contrails to total cirrus cloud cover as suggested by AR6.
Minnis2004 finds a distinct upward trend in CCC over the USA and concludes..
“This result shows the increased cirrus coverage, attributable to air traffic, could account for nearly all of the warming observed over the United States for nearly 20 years starting in 1975”
..while other regions show declining CC. In other words, there is a huge potential for contrail forcing, but globally there is no conclusive upward trend in CC attributable to contrails. The above IPCC position is well in line with that.
Now here is the problem: Already Travis et al (2002) suggested a massive share of contrails in CC, as the post 9/11 shut down showed an increase of 1.8K of daily temperature range (DTR) vs. the days before and after. Being a one time event, it could have been pure random, and of course there is a lot of uncertainty over the magnitude.
However, “thanks to” Covid19 and air traffic affecting lock downs, we have a lot more data now, and plenty of fresh research, like Li, Gross (2021) or Quaas et al (2021). They all outline a massive reduction in CC in the course of lock downs, confirming what the eyes could see – unusual clear skies. That falsifies the IPCC position and brings contrail forcing back on the table as a major driver of AGW. That is in competition to CO2 of course.
ES: That falsifies the IPCC position and brings contrail forcing back on the table as a major driver of AGW. That is in competition to CO2 of course.
BPL: Don’t forget elves. Elves are a major alternative explanation for AGW. Anything but carbon dioxide!
Barton Paul Levenson,
I’m not entirely convinced by the elves argument. The ones I encounter always deny being responsible for AGW, or for anything, they being entirely irresponsible creatures that lack substantial credibility.
But I do reckon to the ABC argument (the one which shares an acronym with “Anything But CO2” but nothing else). Thus the readings cited by the denialist E. Schaffer are worth reading to get a grasp of the contrails forcing thing. It’s just a shame denialists find their ABC so challenging and thus unable to grasp what is wrote in such papers.
Minnis et al (2004) ‘Contrails, Cirrus Trends, and Climate’
Li & Gross (2021) ‘Changes in cirrus cloud properties and occurrence over Europe during the COVID-19-caused air traffic reduction ‘
Quaas et al (2021) ‘Climate impact of aircraft-induced cirrus assessed from satellite observations before and during COVID-19’
Thanks for the links, MAR – certainly puts E. Schaffer’s claims based on the same papers to test:
E. Schaffer reads in Quaas et al (2021). “ the change in cirrus translates to a global radiative forcing of 61 ± 39 mW m−2” 60miliW m−2 !!!
Our E. Schaffer – reads that his “ a massive reduction in CC translated to the increase in radiative forcing by .”60mW m−2, compared to …. ~1650 mW m−2 by extra CO2 and 1000 mW m−2 by extra CH4, and concludes triumphantly:
“That falsifies the IPCC position and brings contrail forcing back on the table as a major driver of AG […] in competition to CO2 of course.”
E. Schaffer
E. Schaffer – everybody ! ;-)
Perhaps a little application of horse dewormer will solve the Global Warming problem.
About 25% of America refers to scientists as fools, and know nothing eggheads.
They are about to take complete control of your government.
What’s your plan?
On the Data Sources page, the RSS link is broken under Climate Data (processed).
Hi Gavin,
I have detected a couple of irregularities in both feedback mechanisms and attributions.
1/ OLR has increased by 2.5W/m2 consistent with ISCCP cloud albedo changes. Due to the short duration nature of the focing impulses and their temperature response it would indicate a climate sensitivity close to neutral.
2/The water vapour positive feedback mechanism is inconsistent with energy minimisation requirements of equilibrium thermodynamic. (Gibbs free energy principles) Among chemistry circles there is an adage, “A system moves toward equilibrium and from equilibrium resists any forcing.” That is a system at equilibrium will exhibit negative feedback on a total energetic level. Positive feedback needs an energy source, otherwise you run into a perpetual motion fallacy. This can occur via internal cannibalization where one form of energy decreases to provide the energy for a positive feedback in another. For instance temperature increasing in response to reduced kinetic energy. Water vapor positive feedback falls foul of this as the mechanism causes an increase in both temperature latent heat energy with no corresponding decrease in another energy type. Thus energy minimisation is breached. The Radiosonde humidity data shows there is a decrease over time in the upper troposphere, demonstrating negative feedback and providing a explanation for the mission hotspot.
The conclusion is that climate science appears to have overlooked a critical piece of thermodynamic theory, Not overly surprising in this era of hyperspecialization..
I recommend approaching some chemistry professors to gain an understanding as it is their chalk and cheese.
[Response: 1) if climate sensitivity were near zero, the TOA imbalance would always be ~zero, and no significant additional energy would be coming into the system. This is contradicted by the massive rise in ocean heat content. 2) You are very confused. This is an open system where energy is always coming in and leaving, there is no violation of energy conservation in having more water vapour since the energy that is embedded in the latent heat came from the sun originally as it produced evaporation. – gavin]
Robert,
I recently had a discussion here about how the concept of “forcing” has been communicated (not clearly, I’m afraid), which may be the source of the confusion Gavin observes in you. I suggest you begin with a simple description before trying to apply complex principles.
-Assume the Sun is “turned off”. The Earth would then be a ball of frozen gases and water.
-We turn on the Sun, which radiates energy to the Earth.
-The system reaches a (“pre-industrial”) state of equilibrium, with a certain amount of energy in the climate system manifesting as temperature and the distribution of phases of water, and LWR radiating to space.
-Equilibrium is maintained because outgoing LWR, whose original outward-directed emission is dependent on temperature, plus the energy in the climate system, is equal to the incoming radiant energy from the Sun, which we take as a constant.
Now, assume an instantaneous (pulse) increase in CO2.
-Because CO2 absorbs emitted outward-directed LWR and converts it to thermal energy, the energy in the climate system must increase.
-The system will then reach a new equilibrium, with higher temperature and a different distribution of water phases.
-Again, that new equilibrium is maintained, because we have a higher level of emission of outward-directed LWR as a result of higher temperatures.
If you think this is incorrect, I would be happy to hear your reasoning.
But I think if you start from a simple description like this, it is much easier to sort out what counts as “feedback” and “forcing” and causes and effects, and so on.
HI Gavin,
It is always useful to read your articles with the regular updates. It was very helpful that you included a graph of CMIP3 model simulations and subsequent observations of surface temperature anomalies, it really makes it easier to understand the trend (raising).
Hello! I am new to the RealClimate web site. My background is chemical engineering and I don’t do modeling. My interest is in the Surface temperature observations(GISTEMP) anomaly source. Anomalies need a baseline number to be of any quantitative value. Referencing a data set(1980-1999) as the source has to produce a number. The GISTEMP data used in your graph comes from an anomaly based on (1951-1980) data set. How do you reconcile the two data sets? The GISTTEMP reports a 1.0 o C anomaly for year 2020. Your graph reports about 0.65 o C. This is such an important issue, it just seems to me that there should be just one base line number. What is the base line number used in the Paris Climate Agreement?
Your graph reports “surface temperature observations”. The GISTEMP data are obtained from weather stations that record air temperature. The earth’s surface temperature determines the air temperature.
As to the data used in determining the average annual temperature, is this the recorded high daily temperatures or an average of the low and high daily temperatures?
It should be noted that GISTEMP breaks down their data between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. In the year 2020, the temperature anomaly for the Northern Hemisphere is about twice of that for the Southern, (1.2 vs. 0.6 oC). Carbon dioxide is unlikely to be responsible for this difference.
In my opinion, it is a shifting of the water cycles that brings about climate change. The water cycle brings evaporative cooling, precipitation, and clouds with their greenhouse effect, thus reducing heating during daylight hours and reducing cooling during the nighttime hours. Wind is the key factor in determining water cycles location, frequency, duration, and intensity. The wind variable is unlikely to be a phenomenon that mankind can control.
DL: In my opinion, it is a shifting of the water cycles that brings about climate change.
BPL: How could that bring about a steadily rising trend in mean global annual surface temperature? Please specify the mechanism.
Hr Levenson
That is the only way that I could immagine and think of in order to really ruin the I)PCC CO2 AGW theory.
Think of a tendency in the shifting clouds, that lets it clear up during day, and cloud over during ninght. or even clear up and rain less in high summer, then you can also sell your theory in Hollywood, Las Vegas, and southern California. And grey weathers with storms and blizzards in the northeast winters. Then you have it. You will not need angels or elves. Youn can simply call it “science!” and “error- bars!”. You could even call it “Obvious” and “Experience”
You will only have to explain for 1.5-2 deg for the last 100 years.
Why sell extra- solar planets and universes in virtual reality, that cannot be observed, when you could sell such a credible and potensially popular theory to worldwide from your US horizons?
C: Why sell extra- solar planets and universes in virtual reality, that cannot be observed
BPL: We have been finding extrasolar planets since 1992 and have now confirmed over 4,000 of them.
But, you are hardly selling that Genosse Levenson, you are selling your plans and visions for an alternative history and universe, and I shall here resign on mentioning a fameous Precident, who seem to do something similar to that, and blaming people for not being respected. A quite tough guy..
By the way, Levenson,
The reason why I allways beat you up so efficiently, is that I have learnt more or less not to take anything for serious, that I cannot see or somehow observe at least a trace or a shadow or a directly real projection of it by my own, naked senses.
In that way, neither the electron nor the proton nor the neutron are alian and strange, alian, and foreighn to me. I do not have to believe in the experts and represent it with their commercialized political LEGO. I can see the molecules and the planets for myself and I can even discuss the material nature of comets from my own and from other peoples astrophotos of them.
And I see and discuss and even touch the climate in terms of ices and glaciers and weathers and indicator- trees and flowers the way we learnt in public school and the empirical practical way that KIöppen for instance did define it.
That is very practical also in daily life . When scientific things are mentioned and discussed, I can remember and find and show to the practical indicator- examples in Nature and in the lab and how to check it up empirically and experimentally, and eventually do further research on it. And how to make it practically useful.
I could once see Ceres for myself, and another time both Mercury and Uranus.
In Bakers astronomy there is a history of how they found then mean molecular weight of Jupiters atmosphere somwewhere between Helium and Hydrogen by measuring its refraction index by star- occultations. That is science and how to astronomize a planet by easy and cheap means. But it takes understanding rather from above you in the highschool- grades..
You loose that experimental and empirical contact with it when you go over into sub- atomic particles and energies, and when you step over into extra- solar planetary systems without having learnt and trained and got any access to the practical ways of how to check it up and control it, and believe that you are more wise and fundamental and adult and large and professional that way.
It is borrowed feathers with no practical value exept for bluffing and cheating. Which is less scientific and less qualified.
You lack the autentic higher wisdom of Hermjes Trismagistos and of Tycho Brahe, “Despicio suspiciendeum / Suspicio despiciendum”.
“Professor Bohr, do you believe in the existance of the electron?”
“…. Hmmmm……,NO!……
…..I do not believe that itr eists in the same way as common things that we see here around us in this roomj, doors, windows table and chairs, blackboard chalks and sphonge…but the devices on the laboratory bench by which we can suppose its existance, they exist!”
Science and science philosophy and Mastership on that,.. you see.
I also have Bohrs philosophy on Pensum, 8″ x 6″ x 1/2″ and in original.
Einstein and Bohr once met for professionjal discussion, They were both Jews and like 2 roosters in the same basket. A very tense discussion. Einstein did hate Bohrs (and Heissenbergs) indeterminism and spoke: “God does not play with daise!”
Reply: ” Albert, never tell God of what not to do!”
C: The reason why I allways beat you up so efficiently
BPL: You’re a legend in your own mind.
Carbomantanus, you appear to doubt the existence of extra solar planets because you cant see them , or sense them, and because they dont leave a trace like electrons, protons and neutrons. The following article on extra solar planets seems to suggest they leave several types of “trace”.
https://www.britannica.com/science/extrasolar-planet
Not making a personal critricism of you, because you obviously have plenty of sense, knowledge and expertise.
Carbomontanus: Here’s the link on extra solar planets.
https://www.britannica.com/science/extrasolar-planet
Nigelj
The extra- solar planets seem to have been found by 2 classical techniques that are well over 100 years, and suggested and believed in ever since Giordano Bruno, with the endless universe and a copernican system around any visible star.
The extreemly long and narrow refractors with extreme magnification and the intense interest in “binary stars” as I find it in The rev T.W.Webb “celestical objects for common telescopes” 1859 reflects that intense, traditional interest also for extrasolar planets.
Progress came at last with spectrophotometry, “Spectroscopic binaries” due to oscillating dopplereffect and spectral lines when they go round and round each other in tempo.
Then we have the extreemly fameous Algol. oscillation due to Algol alfa & beta occulting and superposing each other. Photometry and densitometry being possible both by classical bromide photo and by photo-electric methods.
Those 2 basic methods is what has been improoved and highly refined and…. industrialized on satelites,… in recent time and given all the extra solar planets.
I do therefore recommend the participants to with- draw from their popular and vulgar LEGO from the experts and their teachers in Virtual reality, which is not sustainable along with Mose Law §2 and warned against both by Einstein & Bohr, both jews.
And rather focus interests on reality and Try and give that a plausible thingly and natural explaination, that can be checked up practcally and experimentally by official means in the OBSERVATORIVM and in the LABORATORIVM. Then you can participate and actually teach and contribute to science for yourself.
Further look up for radically new methods and improovements of old methods. ( I even fond some of my methods in the stone age museum) Not the propaganda and sales propmotion of them, but how it really works. “how could I possibly do that also for myself without having asked the experts or buing it from Thinktank, and do something similar for myself?
The Amateur Scientist coloumn in Scientific American has been quite good in earlier days.
That is rather my belief and my mission here.
Wherefore I seem able to beat up the alternatives such as Levenson & al at any time.
It is my professional and facultary mission to enjoin that also in the climate, and I am not a jew.
But as you all can see, Levenson falls back on his routine racisms ” You`re a legendv in your own mind” when he gets beaten by autentic science this way.
It is just only how the vikings also are doing it. It is what works wonders.
C: The extra- solar planets seem to have been found by 2 classical techniques
BPL: Extrasolar planets are found by:
Radial velocity measurements
Astrometry of visual binaries
Timing delays of pulsars
Visual transits
Direct visualization in infrared telescopes
Relativistic lensing
There is no doubt at all that the 4,000+ confirmed extrasolar planets exist. Many have been verified by more than one method. You haven’t beaten up anybody; as with the albedo fiasco, you have merely demonstrated that your grasp of the physical sciences is inadequate and you are a victim of Dunning-Kruger syndrome.
BPL I don’t believe that water cycles are in any way a part of a global warming trend. They merely respond to the earth’s surface temperature. At any moment, hundreds of water cycles with their specific dynamics are occurring. Evidence of this is the observation that clouds cover the earth’s surface about two thirds of the time. As the earth trends warmer, an increase in water cycles would be expected.
Delbert Lippa,
❶ You ask how to “reconcile the two data sets” when they have differing anomaly base periods (eg 1980-1999 for the graphed values in the OP above and 1951-1980 for GISTEMP temperature records.
The global average GISTEMP with a 1951-80 anomaly base has a 1951-80 average of zero and a 1980-99 average of +0.317ºC. To convert the global average GISTEMP record to an anomaly base of 1980-99, the +0.317ºC is subtracted from the data points. Thus the average 1980-99 will now average zero and 1951-80 will averga -0.317ºC.
❷ You ask about the “base line” of the Paris Agreement.
Article 2a of that agreement states:-
This is a rather simplistic description. Importantly we do not reliably know the temperature of, say, AD1750, the date usually considered as the beginning of the industrial age. Temperature of late periods when the temperature record is more reliable are thus adopted by the IPCC, specifically the period 1850-1900, this described by these IPCC FAQs as “a compromise between the reliability of the temperature information and how representative it is of truly pre-industrial conditions”. (You will note that GISTEMP only provides a record from 1880.)
❸ You describe GISTEMP as using “weather stations that record air temperature.”
This is not the entire source of GISTEMP. Global temperature is 70% ocean temperature and met stations are obviously not practical across the oceans. Thus for that 70% of the globe Sea Surface Temperatures are used, specifically NOAA ERSSTv5. The global surface temperature is thus not actually a Surface Air Temperature but a hybrid measure of SAT & SST.
❹ You ask how the met station data is used by GISTEMP given such stations record max and min daily temperature and this is as you suggest “an average of the low and high daily temperatures.”
❺ You note the diffrence between northern and southern hemisphere temperature anomalies and speculate that this is unlikely a response to CO2 which is correct. There is a distinct difference between NH & SH CO2 levels (due to the source of increasing CO2 being overwhelmingly NH and the global atmospheric circulations at the equator hindering mixxing between NH &SH) but the difference is not that great. The most obvious reason for the temperature difference is the difference in the proportion of ocean within the two hemispheres. Land comprises 40% in the North & 20% in the South. The response to warming by land & ocean differs partly because of the thermal capacity of the oceans and also because the oceans by their nature remain wet with rising temperature while land tends to dry out.
❻ Your speculation that “it is a shifting of the water cycles that brings about climate change” is not literally correct. The impact of the water cycle is greatly significant to global climate but there is no doubt that the recent increases in global temperature are driven (or brought about) by anthropogenic CO2 and other anthropogenic GHGs.
Then, you may wish to clarify what you mean by this quote (as Barton Paul Levenson directly asks).
Thanks for your comments.
I still have a question about the use of anomalies. With the Paris Agreement goal of 1.5oC above pre-industrial levels, how would you describe the status of today’s values in achieving this goal? I did find the base line for the 1951-80 data set: 14 o C
.
Thanks for the details on the weather station data. Based on published data, there seems to be a compilation of values obtained by NASA/GISS/GISTEMP.
My comments on the Northern and Southern Hemisphere highlighted the anomaly difference in 2020, I was attracted to the graph because of the rate of the increase over the 1995-2020 period. The NH went from 0.4 to 1.2 o C and the SH went from 0.4 to 0.65 o C. Over this same period, there was an increase in CO2 concentration of about 50 ppm in both Hemispheres (359-410 ppm CO2). The question raised is: “what caused this rate difference between the two hemispheres?”
I agree with the higher land surface temperatures because of their lower specific heat values. Land materials are in the 0.2 BTU/lb/o F range versus water’s 1.0 BTU/lb/o F.
Two fundamental issues causes me to question the significance of carbon dioxides greenhouse effect. The first is that it is the material’s weight that absorbs and releases heat energy and the second is that heat always travels from hot to cold. As to weight, 75% of the atmosphere’s weight is in the troposphere, sea level to 36,000 ft. Its weight is greatest at sea level and decreases with elevation. Carbon dioxide at 400 ppm volume percent becomes 0.06 weight percent at sea level, standard conditions. This is equivalent to 49 pounds per million cubic ft.
Carbon dioxide only absorbs infrared rays in the 12-15 microns range(night time emissions), a small percentage of the total infrared range. Early theorists claim that the carbon dioxide is like a blanket that captures the carbon dioxide and reflects the energy to space and back to earth, causing the earth to warm. For the CO 2 to radiate back to earth, it would have to be at a higher temperature, which is not possible. It could not be at a temperature higher than the emission source.
Using the weight issue, water content is by far the dominate greenhouse gas.
The effects of clouds, a dynamic of the water cycle, are next to impossible to quantify. Although, cloudless skies do result in highest levels of radiant heating and emission cooling of the earth’s surface.
The basic issue is whether there is a sufficient weight of carbon dioxide to have a significant effect. I have not found any scientific evidence on infrared heating of air containing .06 weight percent CO2 . Maybe someone has conducted the experiment.
Delbert,
I’m sure MAR will provide a long, detailed response, but I like to use visual aids and help people figure things out for themselves. You said:
” For the CO 2 to radiate back to earth, it would have to be at a higher temperature, which is not possible.”
Consider this:
https://www.outdoorlife.com/how-to-make-most-your-fire-with-reflecting-wall/
I will attest, from my own experience sitting between such a fire and wall (mine was made from brush, not nearly as neat) that the wall radiates heat back towards the fire. And, as should be obvious to someone with your background, the wall is not burning, so it is not at a temperature greater than or equal to the fire.
In light of this, perhaps you could reconsider your understanding of CO2 and the greenhouse effect?
@zebra – ” the wall radiates heat back towards the fire. ”
– just a small tip: There are now wall paints (for indoor and outdoor use) that have a higher proportion of aluminum pigments and thus achieve up to 90% better reflection for IR wavelengths. A good alternative if wall insulation with insulating material seems too expensive.
Macias Shurley,
Thanks, really.
Next time I do a winter mountain trip where conditions might force me to bivouac with no shelter because I didn’t pay enough attention to the weather predictions, I will be sure to bring along a gallon of reflective paint and a spray gun, to enhance the effectiveness of the brush-wall that I might desperately need to construct to keep me and my partner alive.
If only we’d had that stuff back then, when I was young and foolish….
Schürle
Zebra is ritght on this.
Your inferiority here, as with a majority of denialists and further populatiuon, is that you never had to think and to work and to compute and train in terms of Guldbergs & Waages law of mass action, and rather think in terms of 2 ant- hill and an ants- road on the ground where particles and action mooves un- disturbed in both directions, only determined by the activity and concentration on both sides.
Classic political and military corporative beliefs abo0ut the same are QUACK- ery.
.You probably never learnt to think of heat and of air pressure and of osmotic pressure in due and true terms and categories..
Deutschlandsender…. the strongest and hottest longwave radio- transmitter in the world…. Moskvas ecco chamber in Berlin…. was un- able to with- stand and to push and force back weaker radio signals from the west. Their very large and strong antennas were receiving also at the same time, and even their enormeous coils and condensers and vacuum- tubes were oscillating and shivering and got heated up by Radio Luxemburg and the Voice of America. GESTAPO was helpless against that and thought it was alien agents in their own system devices. But GESTAPO, the Ulbricht Honecker and Putin- group were not qualified,
They lacked Mittlere Reife.
If you think in terms of the red front, Die Rote Front, and of Adolphs Saaaaaaahlerne Barriäre namely bulldozers with broad showels on larvae- feet, you will never understand why Krjeml is shivering and suggesting even stronger and hotter methods because of a small ridiculous comics in Kyiv.
Your suggestion of too expensive aluminium foils do betray your lacks of Mittlere Reife.
Any such reflecting mirror will be un- able also to emit out into space at the same frequencies.
Which can be shown by a vaste lot of practical physical examples.
Such as why is molten silver pearls in the purgatory showing cool- black in a darker room whereas its lags are emitting high orange hot?
And why is fused pure aluminium red hot in that darkened room to better see the glows, but cool blue or gray cloudy cool outdoor in bright daylight?
That lack of reality and of scientific physical practical exsperience and understanding you see,…..does not qualify anyone for teaching and political or commercial administering.
Kirchoffs rule rules for this. Emissivity = the absorbance also.
Kirchoff was a native and understanding German.
Avoid, and do not vote on the alternatives..
Delbert Lipps,
❶ You ask how are “today’s values in achieving this goal?” (of preventing +1.5ºC AGW). The different temperature records give roughly similar values for the temperature increase since the second half of the 19th century but as we approach that +1.5ºC threshold these small differences between the different records will probably become important enough to spill a lot of ink.
The last 5-year global average (2017-21) in HadCRUT5 shows a rise of +1.20ºC above the 1850-99 average. BEST shows +1.28ºC over the same periods as HadCRUT5. GISTEMP shows a rise of +1.14ºC from 1880-99 and NOAA shows +1.11ºC over the same periods as GISTEMP.
However you do talk of “achieving this goal” and I don’t think the +1.5ºC AGW is a “goal” as such. The “goal” is to prevent +1.5ºC AGW and that will be down to cutting GHG emissions. If we go on as we are doing for the next three decades, we may see an extra +0.6ºC AGW (or more) which will take us over the +1.5ºC AGW. But if we halve our emissions by 2030 (which is not impossible if the world finally manages to put its mind to it), then the rate of warming would quickly reduce and staying below +1.5ºC AGW thus becomes achievable.
❷ You mention “two fundamental issues” causing you to question the significance of carbon dioxide’s greenhouse effect.
The first of these “issues”, the total weight of a gas in the atmosphere, does not of itself impact how much radiation a gas can absorbed and re-emit. H2O does provide more of the greenhouse effect than CO2 (it’s a ratio of about 3-to-1, this from an average volume ratio of something like 50-to-1, by weight 20-to-1). But without the warming from CO2 the global temperature would be too low for much H2O to be maintained in the atmosphere and absent of both CO2 & H2O the greenhouse effect shrinks to a very low level with global temperatures tumbling perhaps 33ºC from today’s average of +14ºC down to a rather frosty -19ºC.
You are correct that CO2 absorbs/emits over a few microns of the spectrum. The centre of that wave band is 15 microns so the wave band would be better given as 13-17 microns rather than as 12-15 microns. Note this is pretty-much the peak wave band of Earth’s IR emissions into space.
❸ The second of the “two fundamental issues” concerns thermodynamics. You are perhaps a little confused by the thermodynamic principles which dictates that energy can only be transmitted from hot to cold.
This hot-to-cold transmission concerns net energy flow, not the individual flows between the two bodies. Thus a water-ice cube does radiate energy and this radiation will ‘warm’ a pot of boiling water (and and will ‘warm’ it more than a CO2-ice cube at -78ºC, indeed about 4x more). But the boiling water will be radiating 3x more than the water-ice and thus the net warming is from boiling-to-ice and thus hot-to-cold. Conversely the hot object will cool slower if it is interacting with a not-so-cold object rather than a very-cold object.
MAR
My error, in the heat radiation from gases, there is not a surface, per se, instead the gas radiates in all direction as if it were in the shape of a sphere. One reference suggested that the carbon dioxide absorbing earth’s night time infrared would reradiate about half to the earth and half to space. So, what is the number?
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing Is a recent publication that gives a number. The increase in thermal energy in watts per square meter are correlated with the concentration of greenhouse gases, except for water {“because of its spatial and temporal variability”). The value for CO2 is about 2.0 watts per square meter and for the total greenhouse gases, 3.2 watts per square meter. NASA in an earlier reported a global average of incoming radiant intensity of 340 watts per square meter. The point raised is that can these low concentrations of greenhouses really prevent our atmospheric temperatures from cooling to -15 to -20 oC? Too bad that there was no comment on water. There should have been.
My error, in the heat radiation from gases, there is not a surface, per se, instead the gas radiates in all direction as if it were in the shape of a sphere. One reference suggested that the carbon dioxide absorbing earth’s night time infrared would reradiate about half to the earth and half to space. So, what is the number?
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing Is a recent publication that gives a number. The increase in thermal energy in watts per square meter are correlated with the concentration of greenhouse gases, except for water {“because of its spatial and temporal variability”). The value for CO2 is about 2.0 watts per square meter and for the total greenhouse gases, 3.2 watts per square meter. NASA in an earlier reported a global average of incoming radiant intensity of 340 watts per square meter. The point raised is that can these low concentrations of greenhouses really prevent our atmospheric temperatures from cooling to -15 to -20 oC? Too bad that there was no comment on water. There should have been.
Delbert Lipps,
You talk of a reference made to “night time infrared”. It would be best if you could provide this reference so we can all see what it says.
The atmosphere does actually absorb the radiated energy it intercepts.. The radiation produced by the atmosphere is a product of the atmospheric temperature and the GHGs present. And the day-night temperature range a km or so above the surface becomes very small because away from the surface the temperature is not directly the result of surface radiation but of the atmospheric temperature. And, yes, the radiation from a gas goes in all directions, up, down, left, right, back forwards.
You also link to an NOAA web page describing the NOAA’s Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (the AGGI) which does show the forcing due to CO2 since pre-industrial running a little over 2Wm^-2 and all anthropogenic GHG forcings since pre-industrial a little over 3Wm^-2.
This forcing is not what prevents “our atmospheric temperatures from cooling to -15 to -20 oC.” Our planet was not that cold pre-industrial.
The AGGI shows the forcing since pre-industrial. The present forcing since pre-industrial will cause warming of less than +1ºC, a warming amplified by processes (like increased atmospheric water content) resulting from the initial forced warming.
For Delbert the Chemical Engineer, From His Colleagues at ACS:
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesciencenarratives/its-water-vapor-not-the-co2.html
“Although water vapor probably accounts for about 60% of the Earth’s greenhouse warming effect, water vapor does not control the Earth’s temperature. Instead, the amount of water vapor is controlled by the temperature. This is because the temperature of the surrounding atmosphere limits the maximum amount of water vapor the atmosphere can contain. If a volume of air contains its maximum amount of water vapor and the temperature is decreased, some of the water vapor will condense to form liquid water.
The greenhouse effect that has maintained the Earth’s temperature at a level warm enough for human civilization to develop over the past several millennia is controlled by non-condensable gases, mainly carbon dioxide, CO2, with smaller contributions from methane, CH4, nitrous oxide, N2O, and ozone, O3.”
(My bold and italics.)
Come on, man, if you can’t trust the chemists, who can you trust??
Delbert Lipps. A couple of things. Its not the weight of CO2 that’s important here. Its the mass. And CO2 “radiating back to earth” in terms of the greenhouse effect is not like the heat flow from a warmer to cooler body. Its about how the CO2 molecule responds to certain types of incoming radiant energy, a thing that is easily googled.
Calculations use weight for heat transfer balances. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared emission occurring at night. The following EPA report quantifies the heating level of greenhouse gases, except for water {“because of its spatial and temporal variability”):
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-climate-forcing
The increase in thermal energy in watts per square meter are correlated with the concentration of greenhouse gases. The value for CO2 is about 2.0 watts per square meter and for the total greenhouse gases, 3.2 watts per square meter.
The global average of incoming radiant intensity is 340 watts per square meter. To maintain an earth’s equilibrium temperature, the emissive cooling would have to be 343.2 minus the greenhouse effect of 3.2 watts per square meter. The heat balance has to include water for there to be a meaningful quantitative comparison of water and the other greenhouse gases. In my opinion, water is by far the dominate.
DL: Carbon dioxide only absorbs infrared rays in the 12-15 microns range(night time emissions), a small percentage of the total infrared range.
BPL: Using the Planck distribution and a surface temperature of 288 K, 12-15 microns is 16% of the radiation.
DL: Early theorists claim that the carbon dioxide is like a blanket that captures the carbon dioxide and reflects the energy to space and back to earth, causing the earth to warm.
BPL: No, they do not. Reflection has nothing to do with it.
DL: For the CO 2 to radiate back to earth, it would have to be at a higher temperature, which is not possible. It could not be at a temperature higher than the emission source.
BPL: Wrong. Anything at any temperature with a nonzero emissivity radiates. For more detail, try here:
https://bartonlevenson.com/SecondLaw.html
In summary, you are trying to lecture us about radiation physics, and it is clear that you have never studied any radiation physics. Ignorance is excusable, but deliberate ignorance is intellectual sin. If you want to pursue this further, please open a book on radiation physics, read through it, and work the problems. A good start might be Grant W. Petty’s “Atmospheric Radiation” (2006).
BPL: ” No, they do not. Reflection has nothing to do with it.”
First, I point this out as an example of talking past or lecturing people without getting them to articulate clearly what they are thinking. I don’t see a whole lot of clear thinking from the words being used by DL, which are the typical mix of misapplied jargon and colloquial usage. Note that he says “reflects to space”.
Second, in terms of brushing up on radiation physics:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-mirrors-reflect-ph/
DL: Using the weight issue, water content is by far the dominate greenhouse gas.
BPL: Dominant. Yes, water vapor accounts for about 50% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (Lacis et al. 2010).
DL: The effects of clouds, a dynamic of the water cycle, are next to impossible to quantify.
BPL: On average clouds account for 25% of Earth’s greenhouse effect. They absorb about 30 watts per square meter on global average, but reflect away about 50 W m-2 of sunlight, for a net cooling effect of 20 W m-2.
Why are you worried about weight? What matters is the number of CO2 molecules. Do the following calculation. Assume that if an IR photon comes within a wavelength of a CO2 molecule (not a bad first-order assumption), it is absorbed. Now, consider a column of atmosphere 15 microns in diameter. How many CO2 molecules must the photon make it past in order to escape the atmosphere?
You “think” that you are being logical. You don’t understand the subject well enough to have an informed opinion.
@ Derbert Lipps
“the first is that it is the materials weight that absorbs and releases heat energy and the second is that heat allways travels from hot to cold,”.”
Where did you get that from?
The very nature of heat and of electromagnetism is that it has got no mass and no weight and does not react to it and interfere with it It happens at strict permanence of matter and of mass and weight.
What, only matters and decides of how light and heat “goes” and spreads out is the conductivity of the field.
The stronger heat or the stroinger light, the stronger radio- transmitter,…. do not showel and block and push back the heat or the light or the radio wave signal from the smaller and weaker source. It simply adds up and superposes.
It is not the tight and closed material army front shoulder by shoulder arm in arm on closed arrays pushing and showing back the smaller and weaker front moovement in opposite direction..
Where have you got that idea from? From Hittler? from Stalin? From Classic, militant progressive, dia- lectic materialism?
I ask you this because it is a classical political ideological military doctrine, and not a physical one.
The stronger light does not push and showel back the smaller and weaker light and heat, not even its own reflections that are shining or ecchoing back again. It superposes and amplifies.
The “back- radiations” lights up and heats up the primary source even a bit more. It super- poses and sums up to what was there from before.
This happens in Reality everywhere, , And what happens in reality everywhere cannot possibly be aganst the 2nd law., else the 2nd law would be wrong or what happes in reality everywhere is false.
There, you must make up your mind and make make a choise.
The delusion that it is against the second law is thus simply another wrong and false propaganda statement or “meme” from the deniers side..
@Delbert Lippa
— it is a shifting of the water cycles AND CARBON CYCLES that brings about climate change.
In a current GEB (global energy balance)
https://d6scj24zvfbbo.cloudfront.net/da475a79e4bc41c3b64b8d393a44d235/200000028-5f2325f234/all_clear_sky.png?ph=02adf5ae1c
you have summarized all important energy flows that have a warming or cooling influence on the earth’s temperature. (@bpl & mar / a simple tool that you both still don’t seem to grasp)
The earth’s surface cools through evaporation, convection, and upward long-wave radiation, while the atmosphere cools through precipitation and radiation into space (- to keep it simple).
Long before industrialization around 1750 AD. and its fatal interventions in the CO² balance, however, humans had intervened in the natural water cycles due to many man-made factors like:
– pumping the ground water out of wells,
– sealing of soil,
– slash and burn, deforestation, drainage of forest areas and moors,
– channeling of rivers,…etc
with similarly fatal consequences(AGW), as one unfortunately has to state today.
On about a third of the land area or 10% of the earth’s surface (50 million km² to date) consisting of agricultural and urban areas, evaporation rates have been – and are steadily reduced by human intervention, although in total due to the warming that is taking place they are increasing by ~7%/°C.
The global values for evaporation (38W/m²), mean cloud cover and the capacity of the water reservoirs above land areas would certainly be much higher today without these interventions in the natural water cycle of mankind.
– and therefore you are right (but not complete) when you claim: “it is a shifting of the water cycles that bring about climate change”.
Unfortunately, the local star commentators bpl & mar and probably also to a large extent the international climate scientists and also the IPCC – lack this insight.
Water cooling not only works for your car, computer, compressor …etc. much more efficient than air cooling – but also planetary cooling is much more effective with water than with air (when less water is available @ land surface).
https://climate-protecion-hardware.webnode.com/english/
ms: The global values for evaporation (38W/m²), mean cloud cover and the capacity of the water reservoirs above land areas would certainly be much higher today without these interventions in the natural water cycle of mankind.
– and therefore you are right (but not complete) when you claim: “it is a shifting of the water cycles that bring about climate change”. . . . Unfortunately, the local star commentators bpl & mar and probably also to a large extent the international climate scientists and also the IPCC – lack this insight.
BPL: Yes, only a certain internet crackpot who thinks global evaporation is 38 W/m2, rather than the actual 78 W/m2, has this “insight” which has somehow eluded all the real scientists.
@bpl
38W/m² !!! above land areas !!!
unless you crackpot also wanted to seal the bottom over the oceans
and burn down the forests in the troughs???
Hr.Schürle
When shall you learn proportions?
Pumping the groundwater out of wells was no problem until the invention of Diesel and Nuclear energy.
Sealing of soil no problem before the invention of Badminton, Lawn moovers, cheapest arabian and venezuelan Asphalt and “Betonplatten”.
The sea not only cools…. it also warms the coasts.. Snow does hardly cool.-…. it rather warms the soils and the lands thereunder.
How could you else live in a snow- cave and in an igloo having it quite pleasntly warm ?
The icebears, the snow foxes, the polar huskies, the snow- hares and the snow- groose dig down and they let themselves simply snow down to keep warm..
The arctic ocean is loosing its ice and snow cover now, in order rather to cool off the earth.
“The arctic ocean is loosing its ice and snow cover now, in order rather to cool off the earth”
only if we omit the albedo feedback.- ice covered with snow reflecting most of the solar radiation back into space, water without ice – absorbs almost all of it.
in other words: the snow/ice -> cooling, loosing ice and snow -> warming.
Piotr
The snow albedo effects at high latitudes are less relevant because of low sun and short days in the winter.
Permafrost tends rather to occur where there is quite low percipitation.
Thick enough and early enough snow layer isolate very well against winter- frost in the ground, We know it here from the ackers and from the water- leads. Snowless winters give quite much deeper frost in the ground and frost dammage on sensitive perennials etc. .
What also really isolates very well both ways is stable gray and foggy weather. That gives “moderate” temperatures. both summer and winter, day and night.
CMont:” The snow albedo effects at high latitudes are less relevant because of low sun and short days in the winter.”
Not really: the albedo feedback is limited to summer/early fall -> the days are extremely LONG, the sun is much higher, and on ice-less water – the rough sea provide even a higher angle target, Plus if there is overcast or fog the effective Sun angle is very high.
and at those angles water absorbs ~98% of solar radiation while snow-covered ic less than half.
.
So I suspect (“suspect” since you provided neither the mechanism nor the numbers of your cooling) that the positive ice-albedo feedback has MUCH larger WARMING effect on the heat balance in high lats, and as such, is a major cause of the OBSERVED WARMING (Arctic amplification), not “cooling” as you claim. By the fruits you shall know them.
=Pjotr
There you must think again
“The rough sea provides even a higher angle target plus if there is overcast or fog, the effective sun angle is very high”
NO!
The difference that it makes is that of a reflecting mirror different from a matte, diffusely reflecting and absorbing surface.
A plane surface that is polished to well below the wavelength of the ratiation will reflect as a mirror if the angle comes down to near zero.
Try that with a clear glass window.
The method is used with gold plated optics in concentric parabolic tubes, for astronomical gamma- photography. But a sheet of soot on that glass will look black as seen from any angle.
But a polished black glass will reflect as well as a clear glass and you cannot see the difference.
Snow and white clouds is a very near to absolutely diffuse, white reflector the same way., where the particles are of chaotic size and much larger than the wavelength of light.
If you turn it edge on to the light or heat source, then it will not absorb or reflect or interfere at all. Example: The Saturn rings are invisible as seen from edgevice. That is icy particles. And throw shadows on the planet if the angle is higher.
Alltogether, liquid water in the arctic ocean will radiate or loose heat from zdero celsius.
But snow covered ice in the same ocean in winter will radiate or exchange heat from,….
Fridtjof Nansen wrote well below -30 celsius in the polar winter.
It simply wilol isolate the polar ocean very efficiently in the winter.
Ice on the pools and lakes, actually warms and isolates the water and life below from freezing.
@Carbomontanus – ” When shall you learn proportions? ”
Proportions: — Since about 1.5 million years, the earliest evidence of fire use by hominids, humans have been interfering with natural fire regimes, resulting in increasing anthropogenic fire regimes. Fire was and still is in many areas man’s most important tool for changing the landscape. This period is ~ 6000 times longer than the 250 years of industrialization the IPCC has set to explore the effectiveness in global warming of doubling CO2 concentrations.
For once, I am not concerned with CO² emissions in the atmosphere, but with the slow loss of the ability of land areas to contribute to evaporation.
You missed the point of my question with your answer.
I know the area where you live from the ski jumping competitions in Oslo, although at this time of year the darkness in your home country takes on frightening levels of disorientation. Snow bunnies who drink Russian water with a smoking joint in a warm igloo are therefore not entirely unknown to me.
So it’s not about warming ice or snow, but about the warming effect in the absence of evaporation. Every liter of water per m² that is more/less above a land surface cools/warms the air on the surface by ~ -+0.078W/m².
This negative/positive radiative forcing is simply not adequately perceived by climate science in connection with more/fewer clouds as a climate protection measure.
Less CO² – Less CO² – Less CO² — yes of course —.
But you just don’t have MORE H²O over land on your screen.
ms: CO²
BPL: It’s CO subscript 2, not CO superscript 2. Once could be a typo, but you do this over and over and over again.
Hr. Schürle
There you are unexperienced and misconsceived again.
There are really no very dark nights here where I live, 60 deg north. I could allways see my way. But I was really taken by surprize down in Yugoslavia. You think you have enough trime when the sun is standing low, and then it suddenly is too dark. I can remember once. Not even I could find firewood. I saw nothing and had to touch my way. In july, in a cloudy and moonless night.
In the tropes, twilight lasts 20 minutes. At higher latitudes up to several hours and astronomical twilight is defined at sun 18 deg below the horizon..
Now, near eqvinox, day and night are equally long everywhere and there will hardly be night at any of the poles..
Snow on the ground really helps a lot for light and eyesight, and at fullmoon it is prasctically bright day. Then they could land airliners in the winter on Svalbard airport even without landing lights.
Humans and several animals inclusive zoo- plancton are known to celebrate fullmoon- festivals in darkest Africa, and show typical “monthly” biorythms. from ancient on.
Once I visited Tromsø at midwinter and am naturally afraid of darkiness. But no reason really. Just conscentrate and be better aware of the light. They have 2 hours bright daylight with sun under the south horizon, and for the rest they have the moon and the stars and the Auroras. If you know the stars, you will allways know also where you have the sun.
I asked an experienced Aborginean 80 years old. “No, this is how it shall be, it is litght enough for me…”
I got the swame feeling. I got quite soon adapted and found it light enough. And kept my time by the stars like they seem to do traditionally in the sub- arktis.
So you get the impression that it is rather the sunny side of the globe. In summer you keep time and orientation by the midnight sun.
In Germany at Bremen I have seen Antares in Scorpio for my first time, and in Utrecht Lira di Orpheo passing south of Zenith. Here it passes right through Zenith and Vega is circumpolar. In Tromsø, even Al-tær ( the eagle) is circumpolar. And the time and strongest practical clock- star for the morning- hours is Capella in Auriga.
The bizzaro-world of macias shurle continues: “So it’s not about warming ice or snow, but about the warming effect in the absence of evaporation.”
Water vapour is a greenhouse gas, As as such, its “absence” would cause cooling , NOT warming. And the positive water vapour feedback: warmer -> more evaporation -> warmer -> more evaporation -> etc. does not nullify, but amplifies snow/ice albedo effect: warmer -> less snow/ice -> more snow melted -> more solar radiation absorbed -> warmer -> melts even more snow -> etc.
In the past these two feedbacks worked hand in hand with the CO2 (and CH4) feedbacks
and were so powerful that they were able to take the Earth out of an ice age!
It is not clear to what extent the latter two natural positive feedbacks are important today – but we don’t need them – with us putting up so much more CO2 and CH4 into the air – you don’t need feedbacks to have a massive warming by CO2 and CH4.
The first two feedbacks – still work and still amplify the warming caused by CO2 and CH4.
Nothing of this of course is new, so I’d suggest you read first before sharing your arrogant claims based on your ignorance.
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt“, eh?
To all of you
It is the flat- earthers.
The flat heaveners are even worse.
They never believed such things in old Hellas and Alexandria
Hr Schürle
“..The warming effect in the absence of evaporation…”
I come to think that we have a very good example there, the moon
Where temperatures are really extreme. 110 celsius on the ground at eqvator in early afternoon, but really extreemly cold at night shortly before daybreak, so the mean of that comes down to…. rather what it would have been on earth without water and climate- gases..
So the sum and product effect of all that water and climate- gases is 2 things.
1, it stabilises and mixes and smooths out the temperatures and protects the earth against the extremes.
2, it levers the worldwide mean temperature a bit from -18 to +15 celsius.
And you see and discuss only a part or a sector of it,
But that is called “cherrypicking”. Or Wunschdenkens, wishful thoughts.
Re: MA Rodger says – 18 FEB
I am also perplexed by D.Lippa assertions “ it is a shifting of the water cycles that brings about climate change” – and then saying that it is … the wind that drives this shift. How exactly wind redistributing water vapour is supposed to produce …. an increasing trend in global average temperature SUSTAINED OVER MANY DECADES?
Unless, of course – it is our old friend ABC (Anything But CO2) and ABU (Anything But Us): since we can’t control winds, then we are off the hook for the climate change.
As for the causes for North-South differences in the warming rate – in addition to the differences you mentioned – there is also a dramatic drop in albedo due to the MASSIVE loss of Arctic ice, loss mostly absent in Antarctica.
Piotr,
The Arctic amplification thing puts two thoughts in mind
(1) The Arctic is actually quite a small part of the globe so the amplification is not such a a big factor in the north-south differences.
As a quick check on that bold assertion, consider the RSS TLT record whose Trend Browse Tool gives the following trends (in ºC/decade) & S/N proportions:-
NH +0.262, N Mid latitudes +0.290
SH +0.153 (58%), S Mid latitudes +0.172 (59%)
(2) The attribution of albedo feedback as the sole driver of Arctic amplification is an oversimplification. A recent paper Taylor et al (2022) ‘Process drivers, inter-model spread, and the path forward: A review of amplified Arctic warming’ has prompted a CarbonBrief post on the subject.
MAR: (1) The Arctic is actually quite a small part of the globe so the amplification is not such a a big factor in the north-south differences.
Yes, provided that what happens in the Arctic stays in the Arctic. And I am not sure that it does
given how, unlike Antarctica, the Arctic is coupled with the rest of the N. hemisphere via ocean currents and weather systems.
And when we look for the Milankovic trigger for global glaciation/deglaciation cycles
we look into the warming or cooling of the Arctic – hence “Insolation J 65N ” shown next to the ice core data of temp., CO2 and CH4 during glacial cycles..)
So it seems that Arctic has affected in the past the N. hemisphere climate despite its small surface area.
As for your “NH +0.262, N Mid latitudes +0.290” – it could be self-fulfilling prophecy – if there was a substantial exchange of airmasses and waters between the high and mid latitudes, we would expect the mid-lats to be warmer than N.hemispheric average (since they were cooled less by the air and currents from the much warmer than in the past Arctic).
That said, there are other possibilities that could have produced the observed pattern, so I won’t say anything stronger than that these data are not inconsistent with heat transfer from the Arctic to mid-lats, and with little if any transfer to the low-lats (which warmed LESS than hemispheric average.).
A Follow-up on my response on the different rate of warming between N – S hemisphere: in addition to
– MAR pointing out that the S. hemisphere has less land (and land warming quicker than ocean),
– my adding much faster decline in sea-ice in the Arctic,
there are also different movement of heat by currents – see a paper from Potsdam in the discussion of the interhemispheric differences in Climate Centre page
And these inter-hemispheric differences are expected to increase.
The Berkeley study projected that if emissions remain on their present upward trajectory, the average temperature difference between the two hemispheres could be about 1.6°C. This would be sufficient to alter tropical rainfall patterns, which could affect everything from rice cultivation in India to the health of the Amazon Rainforest.
Which means that the N. hemisphere where the majority of the people lives – will experience higher than global average warming, and that this uneven heating pattern has some serious food-production/biodiversity implications:
So if Mr. Lippa’s intention was to question the impact of CO2 on the climate (since “Carbon dioxide unlikely to be responsible for this difference”) – then it would not have done the trick – the N-S difference in heating does not question the the role of anthropogenic CO2 in global warming, and in fact, it is likely to make the effects of our emissions WORSE.
I’m with Nigel and Karsten. Climate scientists have proven to be accurate in predicting global average temps. But the ocean and forests have been slurping up carbon. An Arctic burn off could spew enough carbon to finish off Arctic sea ice and Greenland (I wonder how Dr. Hansen’s Antarctic exponential melt hypothesis might work out in the Arctic?)
It sure fits with a huge hole in the understanding, one climate scientists have pointed to themselves:
Their work up until this point has been most successful in figuring out transient response. Now is when understanding needs to broaden and deepen to better include stirring dragons. “We’ve” got surface temps down. Seriously down. But as everyone knows, it’s hard to fathom the physical changes and tippings a degree C or two make, including, it seems, for climate scientists, too. We’re surely sitting in the sun in the middle of our domino Stonehenge, enjoying our fossil sunlight.
Huh? What’s this sudden shadow?
“Don’t look up”
Isn’t the concept of measuring TCR from observations at odds with the concept that positive feedbacks can cause abrupt climate change? If there are thresh-holds after which non linear response occurs, and there is solid reason to think this is the case, for example ice melt, doesn’t that mean the TCR changes? If we are at or approaching thresh-holds for positive feedbacks, then weighting to fit pre thresh-hold observations should fail due to a period of non linear change.
But what do you suggest as an alternative? Even if you want to predict “what happens if x occurs”, you still need to have a valid model for what happens if it doesn’t, in order to make that prediction.
Gavin, the latest related graph I see being used on social media is one of sea surface temperatures:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/global-sea-60n-60s-surface-temps-1979-2021-cmip6-models-vs-observations/
The “argument”, of course, remains the same … “models are unreliable”.
Thoughts?
[Response: It was misleading when it was posted last year, and remains misleading now. https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1387824370261897218?s=20&t=eUqNNX8JGJ9lczuYrC0a9Q -gavin]
I look forward to the models-versus-observations post every year. Maybe this is no big deal for those who do climate science. But within the sea of disinformation in which the rest of us live, this always stands as a beacon of rationality. You are a national treasure, and I hope people tell you that frequently.
On the issue of weighting, I’ve always been astounded at how simplistic that final step is. This still defaults to “a model is a model is a model”? Any model passing the entry criteria is given equal weight? I have to assume that was an expedient decision at some point in the past. But it’s surely inefficient on at least two grounds.
One issue is that, as I vaguely understand it, models run in families. They are not independent, but are frequently derived from or refined from some prior climate model. To the extent that descendants of a given approach might tend to generate similar predictions, this overstates the “true degrees of freedom” in the estimate of the mean. (The worst case would occur if several models consist of trivial modifications of the same base model. They would, in effect, be replications of the same data point, each counted as an independent observation in the calculation of the mean).
A second issue is that some models are better than others. In economics (my discipline), faced with a situation like this, the simplest default is to construct the “ensemble model” — the analog of the mean here — via a simple OLS regression predicting the observations (left-hand-side) as a function of the set of model-predicted values (right-hand-side). Given a set of models predicting (e.g.) GDP, those models that have a poor fit to past data get small coefficients, those that fit well get large ones, and those that are collectively nearly redundant (per paragraph above) generate statistics signalling their near multicollinarity.
I understand that you have relatively few degrees of freedom, if the data are literally annual average temperature anomalies. So maybe the flat-footed approach that’s the economists’ go-to would not work here.
Yet, I remain struck by the vast gulf between the sophistication of the models themselves, and the absolutely naive way in which they are combine into an ensemble mean. Surely this must be low-hanging fruit in terms of improving the overall ensemble prediction?
Rate them by their accuracy in the back-cast portion of the data, maybe add some “principal components” type analysis to condense models with near-identical forecasts to a single entrant, then combine them based on based on their overall accuracy?
In any case, I’ll restate: With all the intellectual horsepower that goes into these models, this last step of combining them via the simple mean seems out-of-place, somehow. I’m not saying that to knock the results. I’d just be curious to see whether even the most rudimentary methods for assessing accuracy might generate some better prediction with tighter standard errors.
Yes. I have had similar thoughts. I think fear of denalist criticism has possibly pushed the analysis in the direction of simplicity, and that is a shame. If one were investing serious money on the accuracy of future performance of some ensemble, then a simple ensemble mean would not be the best candidate.
I guess I should add, if it’s not obvious, that this is in reaction to the current knife-edge criterion that is being applied to edit the ensemble.
I grasp that this criterion limits the results to models that appear to be, in some sense, physically plausible. I’m not disagreeing with that. But this editing of the ensemble appears ad-hoc, based on one parameter being out-of-bounds. Not wrong, but clearly a one-off decision.
You in the physical sciences have the luxury of having such hard constraints. We in the social sciences do not. There are no conservation laws in economics. We just have to deal with that as best we can. So we are forced to rate/weight predictive models based purely on predictive accuracy.
If you’re not going to address the issue of editing the ensemble, then there’s no reason to get into this.
But once you’ve decided to edit the ensemble, then consider whether there is a systematic approach that may be superior to a yes/no split based on that crucial emergent parameter.
I have no more worth saying.
So far most everyone agrees: climate scientists have done a grand job of figuring out how a linear system will respond if no tipping points are involved.
And many to most agree that tipping points are seriously involved.
So, whatever the fuck a scientist tells you in the light of day he/she tells intimates a darker prognosis that night.
Yo, Gavin! Yo, Mike! Yo, Stefan! Easy dunk, here. Just say, “You’re wrong”.
RTW,
There is important research on tipping points in the public domain. For example:
Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene (open access)
We explore the risk that self-reinforcing feedbacks could push the Earth System toward a planetary threshold that, if crossed, could prevent stabilization of the climate at intermediate temperature rises and cause continued warming on a “Hothouse Earth” pathway even as human emissions are reduced. Crossing the threshold would lead to a much higher global average temperature than any interglacial in the past 1.2 million years and to sea levels significantly higher than at any time in the Holocene. We examine the evidence that such a threshold might exist and where it might be. If the threshold is crossed, the resulting trajectory would likely cause serious disruptions to ecosystems, society, and economies. Collective human action is required to steer the Earth System away from a potential threshold and stabilize it in a habitable interglacial-like state. Such action entails stewardship of the entire Earth System—biosphere, climate, and societies—and could include decarbonization of the global economy, enhancement of biosphere carbon sinks, behavioral changes, technological innovations, new governance arrangements, and transformed social values.
https://www.pnas.org/content/115/33/8252
A useful paper, but likely extremely optimistic.
Yeah, I said it more than ten years ago.
Yawn.
Kevin Anderson talks about this regularly. There have been articles over the years. It’s pretty much the most open secret in science and policy, perhaps second only to Dems and GOP being two sides of the same coin with only superficial differences.
K: Dems and GOP being two sides of the same coin with only superficial differences.
BPL: Probably true in 1956. Not so much nowadays.
No, Hr Weaver,
I see that they do their best
And I try and compeat,…..
I judge and I give them University notes, and they score the best characters. Immaturus, Non condemnendis and Laudabilis. They hardly score Haud and “get out of here.. go to Hell!”
To my opinion and system, they may continue at the academy and learning- site. I give them Non condemnendis and Laudabilis for standard.
There is birdbath zero celsius outside now, as the Met.inst. no did predict. It comes and goes. That is rather a bit warm in February.
, We reserve Præceteris only for the winner.
For the case that Gavin Schmidt & al. also reads it:
I give Haud illaudabilis only as an insult,
So just breathe out, you will not get it.
Because “Haud” also means a special “head” in Norway. Namely, flamed, salted, smoked, and hanged shep- head.
Ask Rasmus of this, he will sustain it. Ivar Eskeland from Sotra has translated and explained this to us.
And that it is a clear insult to call people “Haud” or “Hue!”.
I give Haud or Hue only to obvious members of the
grand old Party with =P.. The blood- group P, P for Party.
But there is a note also below Immaturus, somethintg like “Get the Hell out of here!”. In LATIN, Vade post me Satana!
But non condemnendis is also LATIN and means hardly condemnable. Which is a proper note.
There is a lot of fameous scientists, poets, artists, and musicians, who came up from the Non- and even from the Immaturus-levels.
But hardly from the Haud- levels.
Yet only a small percent of people are aware of the severity of the problem and the possibility of the solution. We are still just a zombie-like mass of people just walking where they point us to. We need environmental issues in every school throughout the US, Europe etc. Education is the key
Just eyeballing the CMIP3 model simulations (historical/SRES A1B) and subsequent observations of surface temperature anomalies (GISTEMP) (reader friendly version). given above I notice every 3-4 year average between a low temp reading there is another low almost like there is a process going on no-one considered a high is offset by another low- statistically it looks non-coincidental, like God is the only one wise- beyond understanding.
@Piotr says: 24 FEB 2022 AT 6:24 PM
” warmer -> more evaporation -> warmer -> more evaporation -> etc. does not cancel out…”
Huhh – poor Piotr!
You should keep your hands off the oceans, because every climate student first learns that evaporation over the sea is on average almost 3 times higher than over land areas.
Your strange, utterly wrong conclusions must lead to a horrific “thermal runaway” over the sea.
So if you have children who feel too hot in summer – just send them to the desert.
According to your theory, where the evaporation is the smallest, it must be colder:
colder -> less evaporation -> (even) colder -> (even) less evaporation.
If the kids complain about burn blisters on the soles of their feet in the evening, you can tell them they got frostbite.
As a professional in LED technology, I am very familiar with the “thermal runaway” effect.
If a LED (Low Educated Dumbhead) gets too much current, the LED heats up and gets even more current
– up to the point of self-destruction.
P.: ” Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt“, eh? ”
– You’re right – at least for me you have finally removed all doubts that you belong in the very bottom drawer.
With your extraordinary talent you could have explained/teached us (smarting by piotring)
why La Nina(2010) obviously causes a slightly cooler(-0,2°C) earth temperature and lowered sea level(-5mm).
But I guess that you will remain silent…which would be no greater loss.
Schürle
You are the thoughtless person here.
Gavin Schmidt onde ex0plained this by discussing condensing, and non- condensing greenhouse gases.
examples H2O and CO2, CH4, N2O….
Where H2O first has a strong IR- absorbing and re- emitting effect that gives a strong, positive feedback to the known effect of CO2. But that invisible H2O- gas is quite much lighter than common air so it gives vertical lift and convection and condenses higher up as white cumulus- clouds, that have got a quite efficient, white para- sol- effect against further sunny warming of the landscape.
And if it is warm enough and moist enough this rises to several thousand meters where it freezes. Giving rather cumulonimbus- clouds. And from that, heavy rain and even icy hails are pouring down and cools the situation quite efficiently again.
Moral: Water, in its several phases has got both warming and cooling effects, thus H2O is a typical termo- static element. That tends to smooth out the extreeme temperature variations in many situations, and an especially good carrier both of heat and of chill.. .
But this is not your water- cooling effect. It is the chill of empty space, of the very BIG BANG everywhere around us above the atmosphere also in bright sunshine.
There is snow- hurricane atop of any tropical hurricane, with a very large area and a tremendous cooling and vapour- condensing effect. Not only kits and dogs but long frogs and even bitties from heaven., That drowns much of Australia and the very state of Texas repeatedly. When the sun has warmed long enough and there is warm water enough for it next by.
Halos around the sun is tiny ice- cristals freezing and settling slowly from empty air, and a bit asymetric so much of it orientate all the same way as prisms with a certain refrraction- index and refraction- angle. Halos arond the sun tell experienced people that it is conditions for possible rain, allmost certainly next day.
In winter, and in clear inverse weather, ice glister may settle from blue sky a sunny day all down to the ground, I have photo of an advanced halo so near that I got colour- photo of the individual particles in the air.
And if there is conditions for it, you can also see the anti- halo from above in a plane, a dark ring with typical halo- diamerer on the bright and flat cloud top with a shadow of your plane in its center following after you.
Without those conditions solid frost due to BIG BANG higher up and enough H2O- gas in the air, there will hardly be any rain or snow regardless of ground- conditions. But when the oceans are warm enough, there will be enough of it. Exept in central Asia, central Sahara, and in Las Vegas, Hollywood, and in Death walley.
Hr Schürle4
You publish and you demonstrate linear and mono- causal thinking.
Water has got more than one and only one effect and property in the climate. Piotr is hardly unaware of that, but you seem to be.
Hr Schürle
This is getting more and more interesting.
Unluckily I have no english teachbook on it but i have Scheffer /Schachtschabel Lehrbuch der Bodenkunde. Chapter VII Bodenwasser, that is your thema and suggestion.. is fom page 161 to 189, that is quite large. and Ch VIII Bodenluft follows next and begins with: “Mit steigendem Wassergehalt eines Bodens sinkt dessen Luftgehalt und umgekehrt”.
I guess that is enough for people to make up their own minds about youir holisms.
So I only need to remind of keyewords for all those who fall in doubt about making it all soaking wet, in order to save the sealevel and cool the earth your holistic way.
It is what I have found in Wikipedia.
Hypoxia
Waterlogging
Saturation of soil water
Anaerobiosis
Denitrification (formation of N2O and nitrogen loss from the soils)
Metanogenesis
In addition to that and to anaerobic conditions comes reduction of iron and manganese. And of Sulphate to H2S.
C.:
Apparently, you’ve never heard of global issues like water scarcity and spreading deserts.
My concept for lowering sea level and earth temperature is nothing other than ending this water scarcity by retaining larger volumes of water over land areas.
You instead taunt us about saturated, anaerobic soil conditions.
Water scarcity is cured with water !!!
– so your comments are about the dumbest position a biped can take.
Your hour-long posts about the Big Bang and halos around the sun are really great, but for the most part they don’t contribute any facts that could shake my concept.
Carbomontanus says: ” I feel entitled to teach and to educate and to preach due to that…”
Holy shit !!! preacherman !? — You only tell me one thing:
You as a chemist should urgently reduce the dose of your “Hofmann’s drops” (Lucy-Sky-Drops), otherwise your face will soon turn into a cumulus cloud when you shave in front of the mirror… and then change into a flamed, salted, smoked, and hanged shep-haud.
Try and be substansial and keep to the subject, Genosse.
You are teaching and behaving on levels that would never be tolerated and inaugurated at the Prussian scientific academy in central Berlin, where Alexander von Humbolt and Hermann Helmolz and A. Einstein and Max Planc could teach.
Do not give the wold any doubts about the German opinion and position in theese days. I am doing my best here to teach what von Liebig and von Humbolt and Helmholz, Einstein Planc, Hessenberg and von Weizâcker and Angela Merkel did represent.
Hr Schürle
Haven`t you got it that I do consequently describe holiness however a-teistic and prophane in due, confessional and teological terms?
I do that in order to trick out and to tease and to badger and to label the worst, blind, believers, and convinced fanatic desert walkers. .
Achtung, Achtung!
Ghosh,..
I have scored 6 references on the adress- list. Only Killian and Knowitall have done better than that..
I feel entitled to teach and to educate and to preach due to that
My Evangelium agenda and mandate is that of Civilization and of Microchosmos As a chemist and as a blacksmith and musician, I have to further that.
Be especially observant now at Vernal Eqvinox. An old rule from Ur in Caldea and the University of Alexandria.
Wrap yourselves together and grasp 0 Celsius and what that is, first of all, at theese times.
I hope that because Jørgen Peder Steffensen is an actual scientist who has spent a life time studying ice cores that would qualify him to have a voice on this subject on; “RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists”. It will be interesting to see if Gavin will ever chance letting the views of a real climate scientist appear on this site.
Jørgen Peder Steffensen has been appointed professor of ice core related research at the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen. https://nbi.ku.dk/english/namely_names/2016/joergen-peder-steffensen-appointed-professor-of-glaciology/
“The gradual cooling appears to be caused by continental drift: Antarctica become isolated at the South Pole, the Himalayas were formed and the Isthmus of Panama appeared out of the sea (2 million years ago). With the current configuration of the continents the earth is apparently susceptible to climate effects through variations in the earth’s orbit around the sun (the so called Milankowich theory). Over the last 40 million years the CO2 level in the atmosphere has fallen from 1000-2000 ppmv to a minimum of 180 ppmv 20.000 years ago.
Not since the Perm period circa 250 million years ago has the CO2 level been so low.
[…]
One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age. CO2 and climate continued to change at the same rate until industrialisation. I could be worried that our CO2 emissions could very well go and have serious consequences; but one should not believe that nature will just remain at rest if we let it be: Ice ages and climate ripples are good examples that nature is neither environmentally neutral or politically correct.
https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/video/spoergsmaal_svar1/
Whenever I post this You Tube for the anthropogenic climate change alarmist to view they seem to take exception to what Jørgen Peder Steffensen is maintaining about the Earth being 2.5⁰C warmer 4,000 years ago than what it is now. These are the same ones that have no problem with Michael Mann eliminating the well documented MWP with his hockey stick graph.
We Live in Cold Times
6,221 views
Apr 26, 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WE0zHZPQJzA
JDS: It will be interesting to see if Gavin will ever chance letting the views of a real climate scientist appear on this site.
BPL: He is a climate scientist. So am I, though a much more minor one. So are the others who maintain this site.
JDS: One can conclude that man had nothing to do with the end of the ice age.
BPL: No kidding. No one ever said differently. But the fact that climate can change naturally doesn’t mean it can’t change artificially. That would be like saying “forest fires have happened naturally for millions of years, so there’s no such thing as arson.”
JDS: Whenever I post this You Tube for the anthropogenic climate change alarmist to view they seem to take exception to what Jørgen Peder Steffensen is maintaining about the Earth being 2.5⁰C warmer 4,000 years ago than what it is now.
BPL: Probably because everybody else who has examined the problem thinks he’s wrong, and because Youtube is not peer-reviewed. Any idiot can post something on Youtube, and thousands of idiots do. And millions of idiots take everything they say as gospel. There are thousands of Flat Earth videos on Youtube, too. Do you take them seriously?
JDS: These are the same ones that have no problem with Michael Mann eliminating the well documented MWP with his hockey stick graph.
BPL: And everybody else’s hockey stick graph, since the 14 other such studies get the same results. The MWP was regional, not global.
Do note that the statement by the idiot that “Jørgen Peder Steffensen is maintaining about the Earth being 2.5⁰C warmer 4,000 years ago than what it is now” is incorrect. The YouTube video has Steffensen saying he is referring to “…temperatures at the site in Greenland…” and not the whole planet Earth.
However, that said, Steffensen’s reconstruction does not fit with other Greenland temperature reconstructions for that site, for instance Badgeley (2020) ‘Greenland temperature and precipitation over the last 20 000 years using data assimilation’, so cannot be taken at face value which is what Steffensen does and also what the numpties at CO2 Coalition also do, they being the people who posted the video.. But then, CO2 Coalition is a bunch of fossil-fuel-industry-funded denialists so high-octane bullshit is to be expected.
It is understandable that someone so uninformed as what MA Rodger seems to be, would not be able to understand that what “Jørgen Peder Steffensen is maintaining about the Earth being 2.5⁰C warmer 4,000 years ago than what it is now” is totally correct and does not just apply to “…temperatures at the site in Greenland…” and to obviously the whole planet.
MA Rodger says; “However, that said, Steffensen’s reconstruction does not fit with other Greenland temperature reconstructions for that site…” and then provides a link that proves nothing. I had Barton Paul Levenson write to me that; “BPL: Probably because everybody else who has examined the problem thinks he’s wrong, and because Youtube is not peer-reviewed.” There is NO need for any “peer review” of anything that a real scientist, Jørgen Peder Steffensen, presents in this video because there is empirical evidence all over the planet that what he maintains it true, in spite of what Barton Paul Levenson, MA Rodger or Ray Ladbury demonstrate that they are not educated enough to recognize and I have seen this evidence for myself. All over the planet there exist this evidence. Where ever the limestone, the coral, or whatever hard outcrop comes in contact with the sea, the sea water has undercut the limestone, such as I witnessed at Ha Long Bay, or coral, such as I witnessed on Zanzibar, much higher than what the current sea level is at present. Even the detractors to what Jørgen Peder Steffensen has proven with his scientific study of ice cores that the Earth was 2.5⁰C warmer 4,000 years ago than what it is now and that caused the ice to melt and the sea levels to rise and that is empirical evidence that those on this site should not be able to deny. They will never know about this evidence since my facts will never be seen by them on this site that is supposed to deal with scientific FACTS, and that is sad and it may explain why so many on this site seem to know so very little about the Earth’s climate.
@ J D Swallow
you ought to be able to think a bit better and not be so sure of your case by one and only one example that youn seem not able to fully interprete.
Such as together with the very fameous tectonic plate moovements, there is also very fameous tectonic land rising and sinking and steadiness….. worldwide. That is things that I learnt in public school , in physical geography for many furter purposes. We even were shown drawings of lonely idyllic south pacific islands and principles of ringed coral reefs , probably Darwins contributions from his Beagle- expedition, to this understanding. Darwin needed this extra in order to argue for the necessary time- scales for his fameous evolution theory.
Then I have looked at rock and limestone erosions for myself and for my own purposes. It depends highly on the mineral and chemical composition of the rocks, but for sure, stormy weather and frequent high waves, 10 meters high in a hurricane,… does rush and splash and erode and may “undercut” suited, weaker coastal cliffs and even dig out caves.
Thus, all the “facts” that you see then as a tourist in nicest weather may be less well understood and thorroughyly conscidered.
Shorter JDS:
“I alone know the true facts! I, I, I, I tell you!!! The power of discernment is mine ALOOOONE!!”
J. Doug Swallow, Thank you for your utterly irrelevant post. The fact that the Ice Age ended without human intervention is not new.
And, no, Michael Mann does not eliminate the Medieval Warm Period. I am afraid that the data does that–at least as a global event. There is evidence of warming in the North Atlantic during the period in quesiton. However the attempts to claim this was a global event fall flat, because the warming events cited were not contemporaneous.
Next!
Ray Ladbury says many things that are not true; such as, “However the attempts to claim this was a global event fall flat, because the warming events cited were not contemporaneous.” This evidence was presented years ago that what Ray Ladbury states is not true. Naturally on this site, anything that contradicts Michael Mann will never see the light of day and it calls itself a scientific site.
“Ikaite crystals incorporate ocean bottom water into their structure as they form. During cooling periods, when ice sheets are expanding, ocean bottom water accumulates heavy oxygen isotopes (oxygen 18). When glaciers melt, fresh water, enriched in light oxygen isotopes (oxygen 16), mixes with the bottom water. The scientists analyzed the ratio of the oxygen isotopes in the hydration water and in the calcium carbonate. They compared the results with climate conditions established in Northern Europe across a 2,000-year time frame. They found a direct correlation between the rise and fall of oxygen 18 in the crystals and the documented warming and cooling periods. “We showed that the Northern European climate events influenced climate conditions in Antarctica,” Lu says. “More importantly, we are extremely happy to figure out how to get a climate signal out of this peculiar mineral. A new proxy is always welcome when studying past climate changes.”
http://asnews.syr.edu/newsevents_2012/releases/ikaite_crystals_climate.html
JDS. Newsflash. Northern Europe and the Antarctic are not the whole of the world and your one single study may well be wrong. The MWP was also colder than average global temperatures over the last ten years. The following link discusses the timing, extent, and temperatures of the MWP based on multiple temperature reconstructions;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Description_of_the_Medieval_Warm_Period_and_Little_Ice_Age_in_IPCC_reports
JDS: Ray Ladbury says many things that are not true
BPL: No, he does not. But you do.
JDS: such as, “However the attempts to claim this was a global event fall flat, because the warming events cited were not contemporaneous.”
BPL: Which is correct.
JDS: This evidence was presented years ago that what Ray Ladbury states is not true. Naturally on this site, anything that contradicts Michael Mann will never see the light of day and it calls itself a scientific site.
BPL: Idiots like you come on here and contradict established science all the time, so don’t try playing the “oh, we’re so censored” card here. We’ve all seen it, we all know you’re lying.
Your reference does not support your conclusion. “Influenced” how, precisely?
Can’t tell, ’cause your link is broken.
You really do not understand that this news story doesn’t say what you think it does. The North Atlantic and Antarctic connection they are talking about is due to the global thermohaline conveyor, NOT a global warming event.
Copy pasta only works if you understand what you are pasting.
News alert: JDS swallows codswallop, yet again.
Details at 11.
If only he WOULD swallow it rather than vomiting it out daily.
What you alarmist ignore is this truth. The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .038% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the sun or CO₂, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate? The people associated with the essential for the survival of modern civilization, the fossil fuel industries, also know the correct answer and will continue to supply the resources that are in demand.
What is the atmosphere of Earth made of? Earth’s atmosphere is 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen, 0.9% argon, and 0.03% carbon dioxide with very small percentages of other elements. Our atmosphere also contains water vapor. In addition, Earth’s atmosphere contains traces of dust particles, pollen, plant grains and other solid particles. http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/64-What-is-the-atmosphere-of-Earth-made-of-
How large is the Sun compared to Earth?
Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot! http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/ask/5-How-large-is-the-Sun-compared-to-Earth-
[Response: Lol. Really? Anthropogenic climate change can’t be real because the sun is big? – gavin]
Dude, Seriously. Are you impaired?
JDS: The sun makes up 99.86% of the mass of the solar system. Do you agree with that summation? Carbon dioxide is .038% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation? Of the two, the sun or CO₂, which do you believe has the most influence on the earth’s climate?
BPL: The sun has the most influence on the Earth’s climate. Carbon dioxide has the most influence on the Earth’s climate variations. The sun’s mass has nothing to do with it aside from setting the sun’s luminosity. BTW, your figure for CO2 is obsolete, since carbon dioxide is now 0.042% of the Earth’s atmosphere, so try to keep your pseudoscience up to date.
BPL. Like the way you get directly to the point and the key facts and do it concisely. Of course it will go over Swallows empty head, but normal people will hopefully get it.
What Gavin said…
That comment was its own reduction ad absurdam.
“reductio,” of course. Grr.
@JDS
The key ratio to understanding global warming isn’t the size or luminosity of the sun – it’s just the presence or absence of brainwax in the orbit of your skull.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Rigel is far bigger than the Sun, so it’s obviously more impt than either the Sun or CO2!
.03% cyanide in the body will kill most human beings somehow.
OK, I’m convinced: JDS has to be a Poe.
No one could possibly be that stupid for real.
Jim Eager says; “OK, I’m convinced: JDS has to be a Poe. No one could possibly be that stupid for real.” Not that Gavin will ever allow this to be seen by his loyal sycophants, like he did not allow the reply to his remark about my post about the SUN to appear on Real Climate that has been purported to be about the truth regarding anthropogenic climate change. I gain my knowledge about the SUN from many sources and none of them emanate from Gavin, Ray Ladbury, Barton Paul Levenson or Kevin McKinney.
“Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion. (Note: Penn and Livingston were not participants at the NRC workshop.)”
“If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,” notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program, which helped fund the NRC study. “The report offers some good ideas for how to get started.”
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/08jan_sunclimate/
“Carbon dioxide is .038% of the earth’s atmosphere. Do you agree with that summation?”
NO, of course not.
JDS can’t even keep up with the rising levels of CO2…or the science for that matter. He continually uses old numbers in his rants because, as usual, he just repeats an old nonsensical meme picked up somewhere on the denial internet without having an actual understanding of anything.
CO2 is currently about 0.04185% of the Earth’s atmosphere, NOT 0.038%
CCHolley says; “He continually uses old numbers in his rants because, as usual, he just repeats an old nonsensical meme picked up somewhere on the denial internet without having an actual understanding of anything.” What is not hard to figure out about CCHolley’s comment to me is why he didn’t just go to what he deemed to be; “an old nonsensical meme picked up somewhere on the denial internet”, Caltech’s Science & Data Center for Astrophysics & Planetary Sciences, and straighten them out about what he considers to be an Earth shattering error? It seems that IPAC at Caltech partners with NASA, NSF, JPL and the world-wide research community to advance exploration of our Universe; therefore, I’m sure that Caltech would be interested to know that now CO₂ is currently about 0.04185% of the Earth’s atmosphere, NOT 0.038%. Why didn’t CCHolley care enough about this issue to not pass this information about how CO₂ is currently about 0.04185% of the Earth’s atmosphere on to Caltech instead of trying to, in the normal alarmist manner, haranguing, me about it? Why didn’t CCHolley supply the link for this huge jump in CO₂ of .03 percentage point if he deems it to of such importance?
Caltech’s Science & Data Center for Astrophysics & Planetary Sciences, and straighten them out about what he considers to be an Earth shattering error? It seems that IPAC at Caltech partners with NASA, NSF, JPL and the world-wide research community to advance exploration of our Universe; therefore, I’m sure that Caltech would be interested to know that now CO₂ is currently about 0.04185% of the Earth’s atmosphere, NOT 0.038%.
IPAC’s interest is exploration of our Universe and not Earth Science and therefore not a resource for the earth’s atmospheric make-up. Regardless, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is well known through daily measurements taken at the Mauna Loa observatory. Anyone with any interest in atmospheric science would know this and know where to find the information–no reference should be needed. Only an ignorant moron would think otherwise. I’m certain that scientists at Caltech know that atmospheric CO2 levels have gone up and don’t need me to tell them what the current levels are–because they already know.
https://www.ipac.caltech.edu/project/wisps
Atmospheric CO2 levels.
https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2764/Coronavirus-response-barely-slows-rising-carbon-dioxide
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1091926/atmospheric-concentration-of-co2-historic/
Will Gavin Schmidt, Ray Ladbury, Barton Paul Levenson or Kevin McKinney have some ignorant comment to make about what follows?
“Why Do We have Seasons?
As the earth spins on its axis, producing night and day, it also moves about the sun in an elliptical (elongated circle) orbit that requires about 365 1/4 days to complete. The earth’s spin axis is tilted with respect to its orbital plane. This is what causes the seasons. When the earth’s axis points towards the sun, it is summer for that hemisphere. When the earth’s axis points away, winter can be expected. Since the tilt of the axis is 23 1/2 degrees, the North Pole never points directly at the Sun, but on the summer solstice it points as close as it can, and on the winter solstice as far as it can. Midway between these two times, in spring and autumn, the spin axis of the earth points 90 degrees away from the sun. This means that on this date, day and night have about the same length: 12 hours each, more or less.”
http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lmk/?n=seasons
We all learned this in elementary school.
Did you?
macias shurly says 20 MAR 2022 AT 11:57 AM
“@JDS The key ratio to understanding global warming isn’t the size or luminosity of the sun – it’s just the presence or absence of brainwax in the orbit of your skull.”
It is doubtful if macias shurly has allowed himself to be exposed to this information about the Sun and only depends on what his mentor, Gavin Schmidt, writes for him, to absorb.
The Maunder Minimum
Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715 (38 kb JPEG image). Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past. The connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate is an area of on-going research.
http://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.shtml
Solar activity and in fact all natural forcings on climate do not explain climate change over recent decades. Not even remotely. We know how climate changed over millions of years due to orbital mechanics, the sun, etc. But climate change in recent decades can only be explained when the additional forcings of man-made greenhouse gases are included. This is basic, fundamental science. Which you would know by reading the peer-reviewed science (the way science has been conducted for centuries).
Dan says; “But climate change in recent decades can only be explained when the additional forcings of man-made greenhouse gases are included. This is basic, fundamental science”.
Is Dan able to explain why, what is historically recorded during Maunder Minimum, was able to occur when there was no “additional forcings of man-made greenhouse gases”?
History: Extreme Weather during the Maunder Minimum
source: [1] Many of these correspond directly with the Grand Solar Minimum Symptoms, and we should not be surprised to be seeing these sorts of things happening again now.
There was a great scarcity and dearth. In 1700, there was a famine in England from the rain and cold of the previous year. On 14 September 1700, a hurricane struck Charleston, South Carolina in the United States and threatened its total destruction. On the Feast of Candlemas [2 February] 1701, there arose in Paris, France, a furious hurricane. No one remembered having seen anything like it. The top of Saint Louis Church sank in on the assistants. This hurricane destroyed the kingdom.
The summer of 1701 in France was the most remarkable since the year 1682 because of its long duration of the heat and its high temperatures. In Italy, it produced intolerable heat. There was an excessively warm summer in England.
This is what happened in 1681 & 1682.
The winter of 1680-81 was intensely cold in Europe including southern France and Italy. The Little and Great Belts in Denmark were frozen, and many people perished.
In England, the winter was long, severe and intensely cold. This year the cold was so severe as to split whole forests of oak trees.
The cold was so severe Provence, France that it killed the olive trees. The spring and summer of 1681 in England was extremely hot and dry.
The herbs and grasses were burned, and in the air, no trace of moisture could be detected.
An epidemic of smallpox was violent in London, England killing 1/8th of the inhabitants.
On 6 June 1682 a great storm struck Tortorici in the Valley of Dimana in Sicily and continued for 36 hours. Great torrents of water fell from the neighboring mountains with so great rapidity, that they carried down trees of extraordinary bulk, which demolished the walls
Russia suffered from a major famine in 1701. Many of the famines in Russia were accompanied by such horrors as eating of bark, grass, and dung, and cannibalism. In 1701 in Moscow, pies were made of human meat and sold openly in the streets. http://wiki.iceagefarmer.com/wiki/History:_Extreme_Weather_during_the_Maunder_Minimum?fbclid=IwAR2NnmTRMdFZgDipLKJeXHwY0f97MsT5db1Euc0stvV7OO47Qx3J9yr5maE
Again–not new information to any here.
“There Is No Impending ‘Mini Ice Age”
“Pink elephant in the room” time: There is no impending “ice age” or “mini ice age” if there’s a reduction in the Sun’s energy output in the next several decades. Through its lifetime, the Sun naturally goes through changes in energy output. Some of these occur over a regular 11-year period of peak (many sunspots) and low activity (fewer sunspots), which are quite predictable……..”
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/
nigelj says, with great excitement I’m sure, that “There Is No Impending ‘Mini Ice Age”, which is great news because living organisms do much better when it is warmer and it is proven to be true due to all of the folks from north of Florida moving to the Sunshine State.
Nigelj seemed to have no interest in presenting this that is in the same article that he gave the link for.
“But every so often, the Sun becomes quieter for longer periods of time, experiencing much fewer sunspots and giving off less energy. This is called a “Grand Solar Minimum,” and the last time this happened, it coincided with a period called the “Little Ice Age” (a period of extremely low solar activity from approximately AD 1650 to 1715 in the Northern Hemisphere, when a combination of cooling from volcanic aerosols and low solar activity produced lower surface temperatures).”
https://climate.nasa.gov/ask-nasa-climate/2953/there-is-no-impending-mini-ice-age/
Why would NASA have to speculate that the “Grand Solar Minimum,” was a period of extremely low solar activity from approximately AD 1650 to 1715 in the Northern Hemisphere? Is it a different Sun that shines on the Southern Hemisphere?
History: Extreme Weather during the Maunder Minimum
It produced in Scotland a famine of which ‘the lyke had never beine seine in this kingdome heretofor, since it was a natione.’ From Newfoundland [Canada] to Patagonia [the southern end of South America], the Americas experienced notably colder winter and cooler summers in the 1640s and 1660s. In 1675 a ‘year without summer’, remains the second coldest recorded in North America during the last six centuries.
In southern China in the 1650’s, seventeen counties in Guangdong province reported frost or snow
In 1659, the southeast India saw ‘so great a famine’, that ‘the people [are] dying daily for want of food’, while in Gujarat ‘the famine and plague’ became ‘so great’ that they ‘swept away the most part of the people, and those that are left are few’.
It destroyed the olive trees almost completely. Between 1660 and 1680, more typhoons struck southern China at Guangdong province than at any other time in recorded history. A disastrously wet winter and spring in 1661 in France caused another famine and the price of bread in Paris tripled.
http://wiki.iceagefarmer.com/wiki/History:_Extreme_Weather_during_the_Maunder_Minimum?fbclid=IwAR2NnmTRMdFZgDipLKJeXHwY0f97MsT5db1Euc0stvV7OO47Qx3J9yr5maE
JDS. Nice warm temperatures in Florida mean nothing, given global warming is warming the tropics to the point they could become uninhabitable and global sea level rise will be many metres. The Maunder Minimum of the 19th century was about 1 degrees of cooling overall in the northern hemisphere. The modern warming period has already largely cancelled out a new Maunder minimum. The point being is we certainly don’t need more warming!
No one is paying attention to the alarm bells.
So what is the plan? More of the same failure?
Vendicar Decarian
You’re certainly right about nobody paying attention to the alarm bells – or certainly not enough people. First ask yourself why. The answer is here:
Humans Wired to Respond to Short-Term Problems Harvard psychology professor Daniel Gilbert argues that humans are exquisitely adapted to respond to immediate problems, such as terrorism, but not so good at more probable, but distant dangers, like global warming
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5530483#:~:text=Humans%20Wired%20to%20Respond%20to%20Short%2DTerm%20Problems%20Harvard%20psychology,distant%20dangers%2C%20like%20global%20warming.
So what do we do to counter that? Is there anything we can do? Maybe we are doomed.
Maybe it would help to frame solutions to the climate problem not just as being low carbon, but more emphasis on their wider benefits, for example electric cars are low maintenance, low cost to run, non polluting and quiet and ultimately more sustainable than ICE cars.