This month’s open thread on climate topics (no joke).
Reader Interactions
221 Responses to "Unforced Variations: Apr 2023"
Victorsays
According to jgnfld (see previous UV thread),
“. . . there are many studies which clearly show that natural variation alone cannot explain the observed warming.
V: My response seems to have vanished into cyberspace for some reason. (I’m not seeing it in the Bore Hole either.) So I’m having another go at it here:
V: What “observed warming”? During the warming period from the beginning of the 20th century through ca. 1940, CO2 levels were not high enough to matter all that much (see my previous quote from Spencer Weart). From ca. 1940 through ca. 1979, we see no evidence of any warming trend at all. From 1998 through 2016, we have the notorious “hiatus,” during which global warming appears to have paused. (See my previous reference to the paper by Fyfe et al.). And the abrupt temperature rises since 2016 have been attributed to unusually intense El Ninos. So all you’re left with is ca. 1979 – 1998, when global temperatures did in fact appear to rise in tandem with a rise in CO2 levels — a period of only 20 years.
jgnfld: A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.
V: Yes, but the ONLY period that can reasonably be attributed to “human influence” is the aforementioned 1979 – 1998.
jgnfld: A.1.1 Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities. Since 2011 (measurements reported in AR5), concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere, reaching annual averages of 410 parts per million (ppm) for carbon dioxide (CO2), 1866 parts per billion (ppb) for methane (CH4), and 332 ppb for nitrous oxide (N2O) in 2019. 6Land and ocean have taken up a near-constant proportion (globally about 56% per year) of CO2 emissions from human activities over the past six decades, with regional differences (high confidence).
V: Yes, but the above paragraph refers ONLY to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, which hardly anyone contests, with no reference to its effects on climate.
Geoff Miellsays
Victor; – “What “observed warming”?”
Observed global mean surface temperature warming rate has been about +0.18 °C per decade (best linear fit) for the period 1970 to 2015.
See Fig 19 showing the global mean surface temperature anomaly (relative to 1880-1920 baseline) for the historical record period 1880 to 2022, plus a projection of between +0.36 and +0.27°C per decade warming rates out to 2050, presented in the Hansen et. al. pre-print paper titled Global warming in the pipeline https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474
Observed sea level rise is accelerating:
1993-1998: +1.5 mm per year
1998-2012: +3.2 mm per year
2012-2018: +5.0 mm per year
See the graph displayed in the YouTube video titled Sea Level Rise Can No Longer Be Stopped, What Next? – with John Englander from time interval 0:27:20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvqY2NcBWI8
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
jgnfldsays
“V: Yes, but the ONLY period that can reasonably be attributed to “human influence” is the aforementioned 1979 – 1998.”
Thank you for your “analysis”. I suggest most sensible people will go with the expertise of the professionals in this case, however.
“V: Yes, but the above paragraph refers ONLY to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, which hardly anyone contests, with no reference to its effects on climate.”
So, you apparently think there’s a rise in greenhouse gasses which unequivocally warm the (lower) atmosphere but at the same time you say that doesn’t change the average state of the lower atmosphere. I don’t think that makes much sense, personally. Maybe it does to you.
“If you compared the irregularly climbing curve of temperatures since the 1860s with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the effects of the rise of greenhouse gases with adjustments for volcanic eruptions and other aerosol pollution, variations in solar activity, and ocean cycles, the match was remarkably close within the known margin of observational error.”
“A point of agreement we have with Ref. 26 [Lewandowsky et al 2015] concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “‘stalled’, ‘stopped’, ‘paused’, or entered a ‘hiatus’”.
You are spouting nonsense, the same old nonsense you you’ve spouted here for almost a decade now. And we here explain why it is nonsense time and time again. Welcome to groundhog day!!.
Dalesays
Victor, almost all of the warming has occured since 1975. It’s increadable that we’ve seen most of the 1.1 degrees Celcius in such a short time. Surely the trend is not your friend!
Victor
You are phantacizing in terms of what you read or get special orders for from your apparently secteric secret and commercial litterature with no way to think and to check up for yourself on own behalf and make up your own individual mind independently from your collective mission..
That is dangerous and unhealthy. Suddenly, they found themselves in communal napkins with bitty over their heads and long boots on march to Stalingrad for an easy military operation.
Ot stored into the transport planes without windows on their way to Vietnam.
And then it is too late.
That story repeats now again. They lived peacefully and scientifically and sceptically and had their own opinions also, in the rural sub- urban Siberia hoping for a better life and then find themselves suddenly packed together airtight in the train on their way to Costa and to Donbas for a military defence exercise against the ridiculous, sinful alians narcotics and Nazi Germans in Kiev,….
and then it is too late.
( SIC!)
Haven`t you ever learnt how to read also forbidden litterature and turn on also remote foreign radio stations to check up whether the earth is round or not, at least and secretly at own risk and at night?
Why allways and only in that communist cell and closed peoples republic and professional thinktank?
Because it`s being in Michigan labeled Heartland and having a stainless steel Thinktank called CATO does not make any difference at all.
In the SSSR the same was labeled Soviett science academy and situated in Ljeningrad and in Sverdlovsk.
A simple characterization of real climates can be depicted by the ratio of H and LE. A factor 10:1 resembling deserts. i.e. 10 units of H to 1 unit of LE.
Conversely, a climate with LE exceeding H is a moist regime. In the extreme case 1 unit of H to 10 units of LE is likely tropical ocean.
The governing principle is the evaporative fraction of surface flux.
Given a latitude and the annual evaporative fraction one can envisage the climate fairly precisely.
The region currently known as afghanistan once supported an ecosystem consisting of bears and wolves. Can you imagine? Apparently a more temperate climate historically. The evaporative fraction must have been higher compared to today. Sustained evaporative flux requires a diverse and functional ecosystem, not least in the soils.
That wealth is tied to soil health and the sustained evaporative flux is not a coincidence. Destroy the soils, the climate must deteriorate. Deterioration meaning a change for which the residents are not ideally adapted. The history of Central Asia extends back up to 7 or 8 millenia. Before that, pre-history.
I once visited the city known by the locals as Benaras. The residents there claim that it is the longest continuously occupied settlement known to man at about 5000 years. I do not doubt them – it is an astonishing feat – I suspect the sustainability is achieved by the practically endless moderation of climates by the rich Gangetic plain. This plain must be managed sustainably as a first priority. You can mess it up pretty quickly with a fossil fueled machine and chemical biocides.
-” A simple characterization of real climates can be depicted by the ratio of H and LE. A factor 10:1 resembling deserts. i.e. 10 units of H to 1 unit of LE.
– Conversely, a climate with LE exceeding H is a moist regime. In the extreme case 1 unit of H to 10 units of LE is likely tropical ocean.
– The governing principle is the evaporative fraction of surface flux.
– Given a latitude and the annual evaporative fraction one can envisage the climate fairly precisely. ”
ms: — In the NOAA PSL you can have a look at all latitudes & regions of the world in a wide variety of datasets for a wide variety of parameters and print out graphics.
In the available period 1979-2022, evaporation in Afghanistan ( Lat: 29.5234 to 37.1422 Lon: 60 to 69.375 ) decreased by ~4.15W/m².
This corresponds to -53.5L/m² less evaporation during the last 43 years. Precipitation is also declining over there -37mm/43y. A typical dry gets drier region. Different datasets can show different values.
On a global level, I have already posted a GEB several times, which shows the climate development of the ~ last 2 decades or the current to future energy balance (~ 2023-2026).
Here you can see that LE and H have each decreased ~ -1% (-0.86W/m²) and increased ~ +1% (+0.17W/m²) within 20 years. But it could be also e.g. -0.96W/m² and +0.27W/m², since the CERES data only suggest a value for ( LE + H ) of -0.69W/m². — I claim that we see a clear trend towards desert.
Any thoughts???
So we do need a storage term in the surface.
Net SW + Net LW = H + LE + ΔStorage
The radiation budget at the surface is higher than the turbulent flux. There is a net gain into the surface of 1.37.
In a balanced surface scheme, an increasing radiation budget should result in an equal increase of turbulent flux.
Considering this 1.37 about matches the TOA imbalance, all Δ storage of energy is occurring within the land and ocean according to your data.
I am still puzzled by this. Maybe there is a simple explanation.
I would have expected to see not all TOA imbalance attributed to surface storage – rather I would expect that at least some proportion the total system Δ storage be attributed to the free troposphere. I am assuming the boundary layer process is tightly bound to the surface budget.
If this isn’t the case, i.e. that all Δ storage is expected to be in the surface budget, I’m interested to hear so I can increase my knowledge.
As you have noted, the earth energy imbalance appears to be at minimum during el nino, when ocean is giving some of this storage away.
I have yet to see an energy budget diagram depicting an anomalous atmosphere storage. i.e. the scenario of surface storage representing < 100% of TOA imbalance.
I think your data actually depicts the surface storage in excess of TOA imbalance by a small margin (0.01).
My thinking is that the evaporative fraction of surface flux can be related to the cloud fraction and corresponding radiation budget.
There is some discussion of evaporative fraction in the following paper:
Long-term relative decline in evapotranspiration with increasing runoff on fractional land surfaces https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/3805/2021/
"This study resulted in several findings; for example, the evaporative fraction (EF) – the ratio of latent heat flux to available surface energy – exhibited a relatively decreasing trend on fractional land surfaces. In particular, the decrease in EF was accompanied by an increase in long-term runoff as assessed by precipitation (P) minus ET, accounting for 27.06 % of the global land areas."
To me, this suggests a biophysical change to the system such as a net reduction of soil moisture (increased runoff) and/or vegetation effects.
"The decreasing trend in the EF varied from 0 to 0.05 per decade and was prevalent in several land areas (Fig. 4a), except in the most humid areas of tropical rainforest (e.g., the Amazon, West Africa, New Guinea Island, and Southeast Asia) and dense agricultural irrigation areas, including central North America and the Punjab region in India (Fig. S14)."
@JCM says: – ” all Δ energy storage occurs within land and ocean according to your data.
I’m still amazed at that. Maybe there is a simple explanation.
I would have expected that not all of the TOA imbalance would be attributed to surface storage – rather, I would expect that at least some of the total Δ storage of the system would be attributed to the free troposphere.
ms: — Only ~1% of the EEI is stored in the atmosphere. This is due to their pitifully low heat capacity compared to ocean, land & ice.
JCM: – ” My thinking is that the evaporative fraction of surface flux can be related to the cloud fraction and corresponding radiation budget. ”
ms: — Only a very small part of the total evaporation/year ( ~ 500,000 km³ ) returns to the surface through condensation / re-sublimation even without clouds. Therefore 1 Gt (1 km³) evaporation produces ~ 1 Gt clouds ~ 1 GT precipitation.
Due to the loss of evaporative landscapes, we have lost at least 6000Gt of clouds, more like 12000Gt, since 1750 alone.
The loss in LE since 2000 of 0.86W/m² alone corresponds to approx. 5650km³ and arises mostly in the Pacific. In El Nino phases, significantly more water is evaporated and clouds are produced than in La Ninas, in which large amounts of short-wave light are stored much deeper in the ocean.
A long-term trend ensures more La Ninas with high EEI in the future.
The loss in the water reservoirs over the land areas is ~ 100km³/y and here, too, the spreading deserts have an effect in decreasing RH and evaporation.
JCM says: – “As you have noted, the earth energy imbalance appears to be at minimum during el nino, when ocean is giving some of this storage away.
ms: — It will be very difficult for the IPCC to explain why this minimum of imbalance at El Niños is always accompanied by an increasing relative & (specific) air humidity.
Isn’t H2O the strongest greenhouse gas of all???
Do you have an explanation for a small imbalance at peak of H2O?
Tomáš Kaliszsays
@ms,
I would like to respond also to your comment on my post of March 30 (I am new here and do not see an option how to reply to this older comment directly).
I exploit the circumstance that you touch the same topics – the role of latent heat flux and the intensity of water cycle in climate regulation.
macias shurly says
1 Apr 2023 at 11:43 AM
@Tomáš Kalisz says: –
.” We emphasize that our goal here is not to obtain an accurate
estimate of global transpirational cooling, but to present plausible arguments showing that it can be large.
Therefore, by construction, global
climate models cannot provide any independent information about the climatic effect of evapotranspirational cooling ”
ms: — Hello Tomáš Kalisz – I am a biologist and artist and I looked at your graphic about heat wave mitigation / global water cycle restoration. dr Gavin Schmidt is hard to reach when it comes to evapotranspiration and ecology. I’ve been posting on more or less the same topic for many months and it’s hard to have fact-based communication. Broad sections of the audience here are convinced that water cycles should only be seen as feedback on higher GHG emissions. A theory according to which man has actively interfered with the water cycle for thousands of years and actively impeded evaporation – they reject.
So don’t let that unsettle you. Of course, the water cycle plays the primary role in regulating the Earth’s temperature. According to the IPCC, on agricultural and forestry areas and urban land areas land use change has decreased evaporation extensively on 72% (94 million km²) of the ice-free land area (130 million km²).
BOX | BREAKDOWN OF THE GLOBAL, ICE-FREE LAND SURFACE (130 MILLION KM2)
72% of land directly affected by human use:
–
37% of pastures, of which 16% are used savannahs and shrublands, 19% extensive pastures and 2% intensive pastures (since 1961, the number of people living in areas affected by desertification almost tripled).
22% of forests, of which 20% are managed for timber and other uses and 2% are planted
12% of cropland, of which 10% are non-irrigated and 2% irrigated (since 1961, the use of fertilisers increased by nearly ninefold and the use of irrigation water doubled.
1% of settlements and infrastructure
28% of unused land:
–
9% of intact or primary forests
7% of unforested ecosystems, including grasslands and wetlands (since 1970, wetland areas have declined by 30%).
12% of barren wilderness, rocks, etc.
Thank goodness the IPCC at least recognized in 2021 AR6 that irrigation has a cooling radiative forcing, even if IMHO the value is far too low and cooling through the albedo change of land use change is a very questionable matter in particular.
Since the loss of evaporative landscapes cannot be denied (nor can the GHE of CO2) a value for this loss is missing in the 200 times peer reviewed graphic (@ Dan).
The following graphic is the combination of a GEB model with the observation values CERES 2000-2020, which also quantitatively captures the loss of evaporation and the 20-year development of the global climate. Less evaporation (-0,86W/m²) —> less cloud albedo (~ -0,8W/m²) are the main driver of the increased energy imbalance.
I also really like the project of conquering/populating the desert with solar cells.
However, at the moment it seems that the production of electricity via mirror power plants and concentrated solar radiation in combination with a steam turbine has better efficiency, since the electricity production can be sustained at night by thermal storage.
But you probably know that cooled PV modules show an improved power production with every °C of cooling (~0.5%/°C). A PV module that is cooled down from 95°C to 35°C, for example, produces ~ 30% more energy and is certainly more durable. I myself develop prototypes in the field of *water-cooled LED light and PV-T modules with ~85% efficiency”. If you are interested – just contact me.
Mirror power plants are very expensive in terms of production costs – which not every desert state can afford. PV systems in the desert require significantly less effort, time and capital.
If I understand your graphic correctly, you want to evaporate water with hot solar cells ????
(TK) My comment amendment thereon is as follows:
I am a physical and organic chemist by my education and a technologist and patent engineer in several chemistry-related industry branches by my career. Being since 2011 in organic semiconductor industry and dealing also with materials for organic solar cells, I strived to grasp in which extent might photovoltaics (and organic photovoltaic as a part thereof) contribute to a switch of electricity production from non-renewable sources to renewable ones.
Although my primary focus is on electrochemical technologies for a cheap long-term electricity storage that might make electricity production from intermittent renewable sources such as wind and sun reliable and still cheap enough to be economically competitive with fossil fuels, see e.g. https://orgpad.com/s/5BfLP-cxj-7 ,
I see as potentially important also the questions pertaining to economy and possible environmental consequences of massive renewable source exploitation.
This prediction is exactly opposite to the assumptions of the biotic pump hypothesis assuming that for bringing moisture from the ocean to the interior of continents, an intensive small water cycle enabled by forests and wetlands should be beneficial.
The idea behing my proposal is testing both hypotheses practically, on urban islands as a model of a desert, by installing either lot of classical solar panels, or (togerther with a necessary infrastructure for rain catching and storage) “2.0” solar panels cooled by water transpiration. A statistical evaluation of both alternatives could show if rather the first or the second alternative brings more precipitation into hot cities and makes the conditions therein more livable during the hot summer seasons.
The results migh then serve as a testing benchmark for the respective microclimate models.
Finally, the results of such comparisons could be perhaps exploited also for testing the available global climate models.
I hope that although Dr. Gavin Schmidt may not become impressed, someone else from the climate modelling community might perhaps still perceive this idea as worth of an attention.
Solar mirrors can be made rather cheaply by aluminium plate and even aluminium foil and cheapest straw or bamboo for rigidity. I have seen it suggested and even demonstrated for boiling teawqater and frying egs without fire or electricity. And for heat storage, molten salt where sodium sulphate hydrate is suggested with a high phase transcision entrophy that can also worh further with a heat pump.
Promising, but please, resign on higth consumption waste and brutality of the product then, which is just as important.
We shall try it tomorrow with barbecue at the shore, the art of heating and make piquenique with leat possible firewood smoke and waste., which is quite an art. If people only could train on that.
Why not a smooth, large wheeled local diligence taxi, , why porsche and BMW and Tesla at those brutal accelerations and speeds?
Square kilometers of photovoltaic…. what about dustbowls and birrshit? Common windows must be cleaned quite often and that is expensive.
I am expert on microclimate as a passionate sea bather at 60 deg north.
Microclimate is even more important for comfortable living further north. We have managed ripe tomatoes and wine without greenhouse glass or plastic in the sunny wall. By good design and needlewood trees that break the wind even breaks the snowfall and make their own natural microclimate, you can acheive maybe 2 deg warmer than the average climate by such rather traditional means.
What the aspirands here are not yet aware of is that the earth is round and that solid vegetation and evaporation rather warms the situation at night and in the winter.
It is shadowy cool under a large tree in the summer at noon, but rather pleasant warm in the nights and in the winter.. It breaks the storm and the winds so you will not loose heat by wind and storm convection. That rules also for houses.
The ground thaws first in spring under the proper trees. Sensitive animals rest and go to sleep in the bushes and under the trees. Birds sit warm in the trees in the winter. And there they also find the first grass in spring. Birdshit especially there makes warm fruitgardens under the old trees.
There is obviously a special “greenhouse” for life in the woods. Thus in order to fight greenhouse effects, and to cool the earth, get all the bushes and trees away first .
Tomáš Kaliszsays
@carbomontanus
Thank you very much for your commment!
You have very good point in that the terrestrial vegetation may have both the cooling as well as the warming effect on the microclimate. I believe that its effect could be, as a rule of thumb, characterized the way that vegetation makes the microclimate milder, with less extremes in comparison with the same area unplanted.
I think that in some extent, the influence of the vegetation cover can be mimicked by irrigation of the bare land. Of course, there are limitations, because mere change in production of latent and sensible heat cannot mimics all processes taking place in the soil, e.g. biodegradation of dead “biomass” that may likely also contribute to the pleasant microclimate of the forests and bushes you mention.
The idea behind the proposed “urban heat island mitigation” experiment is exploiting the assumed analogy (between urban heat islands and deserts) as a test bed for existing climate models.
Let me assume that the available urban microclimate models correctly predict the effects of massive solar cell installation in cities. Then – if global climate models are built on the same principles – such a good fit (between the observed results on one hand and microclimate model predictions on the other hand) could be a hint that predictions of the global climate models, as regards the effects of various human activities that perturb the complex system of the global water cycle and thus may perhaps influence also the global climate, might be also reliable.
Production of additional sensible heat (e.g. by albedo changes) or change of the ratio between latent and sensible heat (e.g. by irrigation, or by replacement of the “classical” solar cells with solar cells immersed by water / cooled by water vapour transpiration) may serve as examples of such human-caused “perturbations” to the global water cycle or “interferences” therewith.
As an outsider, I lack a solid knowledge base in this respect. Therefore, I propose that my public orgpage “Discussion forum: Heat wave mitigation in urban environment, solar energy exploitation and global water cycle restoration”, easily accessible under following link
could serve as a platform for sharing the respective knowledge.
The link gives everybody the right for adding any suitable content – comments, documents, videos, links to other websites etc. Hereby, you are invited to participate.
I think that OrgPad might be the suitable platform because it enables, by structuring the content without limitations by a given format, visualize complex relationships without losing an overview of the big picture.
JCMsays
Greetings @Tomáš Kalisz
I will consolidate a few items of interest to me:
I am a land steward who wishes to offer climate stabilizing perspectives in addition to efforts to reduce trace gas emission. In this forum my goal is to frame the concepts of hydrology and ecosystem effects in terms of interest to the climatological community.
These concepts discussed, such as minimizing hydrological and temperature extremes, are resisted for unknown reasons here – perhaps it is for computational simplification. The definitions proposed by radiation theorists and experimental computationalists have somehow now permeated into and displaced definitions and teaching of environment, climates, & change.
The human related factors proposed by those who reduce their perspective of climates to computational capability and radiometer observation appear to include: Surface albedo, aerosol, ozone, and trace gas emission. Everything else, therefore, such as real climates, real environments, and change is deemed a feedback to such effects.
Alternative themes centre around overall drying of the continents, directly by human intervention, in addition to feedback effects from trace gas, with particular rapid pace over the most recent centuries.
The observations related to highly degraded ecosystems and watersheds include, but are not limited to: hydrological extremes such as increasing flood and drought extremes, and increasing temperature extremes.
These observations of climate changes appear to be confused with the equally important notion of “global warming”. The result is that local community decision makers have minimal understanding of the local factors of risk for their residents, and they have no sense of accountability when things go wrong.
Makarieva & co. notes a hysteresis whereupon the shift to a dry regime is self-reinforcing /resistent and can therefore cause some confusion about the benefits of ecological restoration. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16644
The factors of reduced oceanic moisture flows over continents + reduced evaporative fraction is evidently a compounding effect. The drying continents directly by the hands of humanity with increasing temperature and hydrological extremes has far reaching consequences for changing climates. The common view here is that increasing continental “heat” should increase rising air currents and therefore promote “sea breezes” and return flows. But it seems there must be more going on.
I look forward to hearing more of your novel perspectives.
Ned Kellysays
@JCM “overall drying of the continents,”
Been reading your commentary on and off, thank you.
I am assuming however that this overall drying is directly and cumulatively caused by human activity, being intervention in the destruction/change in the vegetation state of global ecosystems including over plains, grasslands, savanna and rain-forests etc over millennia and extremely rapidly during the last ~200 years and still increasing in extent.
Is this your view, or do ahve some additional insights explanations. Thanks
JCMsays
@Ned Kelly,
the themes wide scale continental desiccation and profound ecosystem change, directly by human activity, is the crux of the argument.
Always consider that there is 10x the ecological activity, biomass, and hydrogeological process occurring below the terrestrial surface compared to what’s visible above. I look to the soil first and foremost – where change is unobservable directly by radiometer.
It should be uncontroversial that such direct impacts have consequences to local and regional climate observables – such as temperature and hydrological extremes, and the depth and duration of such events. This, irrespective of trace gas emission.
But, such effect are thought of as second order importance. Dare I say, hydrological stabilization is deemed an “adaptation’ to climate change? What a funny way to think about things.
On the controversial side of things, unnaturally limiting the duration, extent, and intensity of latent fluxes and/or condensation processes may have broader impacts for climates more generally.
Even in a preindustrial atmosphere with unperturbed trace gas concentration, such changes would impact upon hydrodynamic balancing processes.
The fluid mass flux has always been coupled to net solar and transmitted radiative flux, particularly in the turbulent layer.
Unnaturally limiting the hydrodynamic freedom surely has impacts.
The pressure is only increasing today with the proliferation of trace gas emission. A double whammy for climates, where the feedback regime has been perturbed in addition to IR atmospheric optics.
Tomáš Kalisz says: – ” wind and sun reliable and still cheap enough to be economically competitive with fossil fuels … pertaining to economy and possible environmental consequences of massive renewable source exploitation. ”
ms: — The overall efficiency of a typical wind turbine is currently around 50% – that of PV only 20-25% if it is not cooled in summer with the rising temperatures – even less.
However, the energy efficiency of PV modules can be tripled by using a water-cooled absorber and using the heat for heating and hot water.
Solar panels cooled by water transpiration will need a lot of water, that is better transpired by vegetation or crop, thereby absorbing CO2.
My concept to cool down cities is to use the summer heat to heat in the winter. And vice versa, using the cold of winter for cooling in summer. Large seasonal heat and ice storage in combination with heat pumps also have space underground and can possibly be combined with pumped storage or compressed air storage and serve as a protection against drought and flooding.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Macias Shurly,
I would like to comment on your idea
“My concept to cool down cities is to use the summer heat to heat in the winter. And vice versa, using the cold of winter for cooling in summer. Large seasonal heat and ice storage in combination with heat pumps also have space underground and can possibly be combined with pumped storage or compressed air storage and serve as a protection against drought and flooding.”
Basically, there is a significant overlap between you and me in the aspect that providing ctities with an infrastructure for collecting and re-use of precipitation could be beneficial, despite of costs.
One of the goals of the proposed “Urban heat wave mitigation project” is to prove in which extent the amount of such colected precipitation water could be sufficient for my idea of evaporatively cooled photovoltaics as a means for making hot summers days in cities more livable for inhabitants.
Another goal is testing whether or not a massive installation of classical solar panels producing lot of additional sensible heat may indeed bring more precipitation in the urban heat islands – as could be expected by analogy to a prediction made for Arabian Peninsula: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/23/1/JHM-D-20-0266.1.xml by WRF model.
“…, despite of costs.
One of the goals of the proposed “Urban heat wave mitigation project” is to prove in which extent the amount of such colected precipitation water could be sufficient for my idea of evaporatively cooled photovoltaics…”
ms: — There are no water retention costs. It’s a good deal that you can easily invest in – or not. I pay for 1m³ of tap water > 2$. If I have a roof area of 100m² and an average annual rainfall of 1000mm, $200 for a rain barrel/cistern with a few meters of pipe is amortized after a year. If the installation lasts 30 years I will have saved at least $5800 if I use the rainwater in the garden and toilet/washing machine etc.
I don’t think your evaporative water-cooled PV modules are very efficient, because the thermal energy is not harvested and used, but escapes into the atmosphere as water vapor. I imagine your modules so that their surface is sprayed with collected (rain) water at short intervals on hot days.
The cooling corresponds to the evaporated amount of water (0.68KWh/L).
An average PV module with 1m² produces approx. 200Wp at a module temperature of 35°C and incident solar radiation of 1000W/m² – let’s say on a long, cloudless summer day an energy yield of 2KWh and therefore also 8KWh of heat. So on a hot day you may need 12 L of water / m² of PV surface. I don’t think that’s very sustainable idea at a time when water is becoming scarcer in many places speacially in heat waves.
Drops on the pane of glass can focus the light and selectively disrupt the power production of the solar cells like a small shadow.
If the PV system is mounted on roofs, the inhabitants hardly feel this evaporation cold and a park with a fountain, which is watered with half the amount of water / m² in the early morning hours, has much more pleasant cooling effects, shade and quality of life for the city dwellers.
In comparison, a water-cooled PV module with absorber and heat exchanger (& without water consumption) is ~3-4 times more energy efficient, since you can save a lot of electricity, oil & gas with the harvested 8KWh of heat in the bathroom, kitchen, washing machine, dishwasher – with large water tanks and the right heat pump, this also works for heating in winter.
I hope you don’t get this wrong and enjoy arguing about the measures we need to implement in cities to reconcile heat waves, climate change and the energy transition. Ultimately, capitalism will also be a measure of how much urban cooling, energy production and adaptation to climate change is possible for one $
I also don’t think a reliable increase in precipitation coming from the sea in a coastal region through large-scale PV is very promising.
JCMsays
@ macias and Tomáš
“evaporated amount of water”
In addition to the mass flux and associated fluid heat transport – you will have the added latent heat of vaporization along for the ride.
For increased efficiency, consider the equally important process of condensation in any scheme.
Just as Turkey is watered using vapor flows off the Carpathian uplands 1000km upstream, all continental watering must have a condensation / precipitation trigger.
Else, the vapor flies right by.
Such triggers reduce the duration of vaporized molecules in atmosphere. They also produce synergies in the hydrological regime which extend across vast regions.
Plumes of condensed matter surfaces.
Consider enhancing condensation triggers, such that abundant fungi and bacteria species are provided to hop on board vapor streams to make things happen. When available, they travel well in fluid dynamic atmosphere. In sufficient abundance, they provide a hygroscopic trigger.
While it is not very glamorous, I suspect the atmosphere is starving for the stuff. Restore the deficits and ‘seed’ the water cycle by incorporating aspects of natural ecology.
That argument of “surface budget” relasted to “H + LE” scaled from 1:10 to 10:1 can hardly be relevant fruitful and valid for the discussion of climate,…… and the fameous wealth of nations and bio- productivity as long as a series of further parameters and realities are ignored. Parameters and realities that are basic in soil science and especially in the FAO litterature and learnings that I have seen.
So why suddenly hide, ignore or forget all that?
I am getting suspiscious.
And there is nothing that I have not yet understood or never learnt, or forgotten about all that.
I first suggested and insinuated “Hide the decline” where the very winter and the very nights are hidden for demagogic political progressive sales reasons.
Then the quetrion whether the earth is cylindric, Mercators projection, or conical in cone- projections of the truth namely in order to make it flat again in the books and on the screens.. That is also rather 50:50 but, why hide the decline? The shortest way to China is not via Gibraltar Suez and the Malacca strait.
And whether the earth is a water cooled,… or a water warmed planet. Beware of launching your sales as holism there with waterbarrels like someone else has done..
Then remark the holism of the worlds flora, especially the trees. We go for trees don`t we? There are also weeds and trees underwater.
The tropical trees are broadleaved and green all the time. The tempered zone trees are broadleavet with leavefall in wither There are even broadleaved with leavefall in the dry summers to avoid too much “evapotranspiration”. and stay wealthy.
And then the very Taiga, the coniferaceae and evergreen needlewoods.
What can it tell us? the worlds largest climatic and forested land area.
Then the Cactaceae, who seem to need no rain at all and seem to live from Claussius Clappeyron in the air only rather at windstill withouit turbulent boundary layer streams of air.
And where have you got your summer and winter isoterms in your climatic theory?
And in addition, only the slogan “Soil health”. What about the pH and the reserves of acessible mineral plant nutricians such as Potassium Nitrate Phosphate Sulphate Magnesium Calsium Copper Zink Selenium Vanadium Litium and Boron?
Where is Justus von Liebig and Gay Lussac? were they not PENSUM in public school?
Where is Norman Borlaug and the green revolution? Is there only Rudolf Steiner who cheat and buy their manure from those industrial peasants who better can afford NPK with Dolomite powder and ammonium nitrate and diesel for their machineries?
Where are your thoughts and explainations about eventual volcanic ash sediments, fossile and weathering marine clays, and fossile seashells and corallinales worldwide?
Only that “Evapotranspiration”
Stalin and Lysenko, 2 flat earthers, also performed by such monocausal, progressive brand new terms in Ukraina and in Siberia to grow oranges and wines like they had tasted it in Krjeml from southernmost Kryim.
JCMsays
This has become evasive and frivolous. Far too many obviously smart people squander their gifts on antagonistic argumentation. It is only deepening disunity, which is opposite to my goals.
You are becoming evasive and frivolous here and squander your eventual gifts on antagonistic argument.
The Sahel belt is greening in our days.
The main world desert and arid land stretching from China through central Asia via the middle east over to Africa and out to Marocco has been taken serious by NASA and by the Google Earth and Google maps..
Las Vegas Lake Mead and southern California however US american are irrelevant in comparision, only local provincial details that are being cherry- picked by flat earthers blind believers, and desert walkers. for their worshipful antagonistic argumentation deepening disunity.
I repeat. ….!
I tend to believe that you hardly have got autentic oasis- culture anymore in the USA whereas it exists all the way from China to Marocco as can be found and focused in by Google maps.
And in the same same way, artificial microclimate against chill and uncertain percipitation for the cultivation of rather termophile crops has existed for 6000 years at least all the way from Mt.Ararat via central and eastern Europe to Flåmsdalen in Sogn and further to to Gardar in Austerbygd Grønland.
Do not teach the chineese and the japs how to heat , how to piss, and how to irrigate by critical resources.
Do not try and teach the aborgineans in China or in Sogn how to cultivate their very steep and scarce ackers on both sides in a sustainable way. Because, they could allready read and write for the last 5000 years.
Mao tsedong tried that.
Q. How shall we dissolve the contradiction in the People?. .
Answer: The agriculture must be industrialized!
In that way, Mao deleted the very chineese Peasant wisdom by a pen- stroke , and set Guinness world record of hunger cathastrophy…
Which is typical Besserwisserei “Know-it-all” from the progressive verbal chat faculty of Bejing with its deputees in the provinces worldwide. , Where the earth is as flat as a military training camp within barbed wires, , where also matter is dia- lectic, and further artificial planting and irrigation of the same to cool down the situation.
Examples:
Q How to doubble Chinas rice production?
Answer: Plant the rice twice as tight.
Q: How to fill up the Colorado river and lake mead? The Aral Sea? ?
Answer: By Evapo- transpiration.
Next question: What the Hell are they fighting for?
Answer:L The Donbas and Dnipro river and cernozem – resources Tallgrass semi arid steppe.
Stalin and Lysenko, two fameous pioneers and flat earthers, managed to make guiness world record hunger cathastrophy even there.
(Evasive and frivolous, he wrote.)
Ned Kellysays
Carbomontanus is a waste of time and space.
Don’t feed the trolls, ignore them.
I hope you share you info ideas on other venues. Or perhaps link with your knowledgeable coworkers as a team and start a substack or something similar. Even Twitter might be useful. The reach here is minuscule to almost non-existent. Nowadays it is more like an old people’s club talking in circles.
Climate topics may be both funny (smile up) and tragic (smile down)
Climate topics being emosionally neutral,….I cannot believe it.
It is more a problem, I believe, of hardly any consensus or agreement of what it is about.
Peoples backgrounds, upbringings , and learnings of what it is about may be very different and quite often even categorically colliding.
Wherefore due manners are important at civilized and academic meetings and discussions.
If one is damned mad, one is only permitted to say it. Wherefore there is ” CORNIA DEPOSITVRVS ” before being allowed into the higher studies.
I go for Köppens climate definitions, and for Le quattro stagioni, in Köppens system.
Flora and lack of the same and eventual glaciers, cryosphere they call it, (A lot of that in California now.) And when spring and autumn comes, tell a lot about it. and whether that may be changing over the years..
By theese elementary things, one does not have to believe in the experts anymore Zero Celsius is better. . NVLLIVS IN VERBVM
V: During the warming period from the beginning of the 20th century through ca. 1940, CO2 levels were not high enough to matter all that much
BPL: It’s the increase that matters. You’re confusing the value of a variable with the first time derivative of that variable. A 10% increase in CO2 has the same effect on temperature whether it’s going from 200 to 220 or 300 to 330.
zebrasays
BPL. that’s an overly broad generalization.
And it’s a perfect example of what I keep telling you… you are responding to a nonsensical statement, and creating the illusion of a scientific discussion, and now also descending to the troll’s level of sloppy thinking and language.
Sorry, folks, but your co-dependency is not helping the cause of educating the public on how science actually works.
Ray Ladburysays
Um, actually, Barton is correct. Forcing follows log[CO2], and logs scale with factors, not linearly. A reasonable person would apologize at this point.
zebrasays
Are you saying that this is true no matter the characteristics of the system being acted upon?
Would it be true going from 10 to 11, or 2,000 to 2,200? I don’t think so.
Again, my point. You let the troll frame the discussion, responding to the same nonsense over and over in slightly different forms. What’s that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Victor achieves his goal; he is in control. What is your goal? What are you teaching to the hypothetical newbie reader?
A reasonable person would answer that.
nigeljsays
In my view Victor is deluded and repetitive and probably won’t ever be convinced he’s wrong, but a newbie probably gets something out of the replies to Victors comments. I know a bit more than the average person about the climate issue, but I’ve often got something out of replies to Victors comments. There’s always more to learn. Technical detail is important, and little things can be quite revealing. It also helps conform that my own understanding and intuitions are correct.
z: Would it be true going from 10 to 11, or 2,000 to 2,200? I don’t think so.
BPL: The log approximation is held to be valid from approximately 1 to 1,440 ppmv.
zebrasays
BPL, I forget the numbers but for a very low CO2, there would be no water vapor in the atmosphere, and GMST would be very cold. So how would GMST change at the same rate going from 10 to 11 as going from 300 to 330? It’s a physically different system.
I just saw on the net that they are shuffeling 17 meters 700 inches of snow uphill in “Mammoth valley” caifornia.
Las Vegas, Hollywood, Southern California , Los Angeles and Sacramento will not be in charge anymore. This changes and probably settles everything, and washes it out. .
Just think of when all that will have to rush out due to zero celsius that is coming. quite soon now. ..
Maybe even the US Citizens will, learn to think in terms of Zero Celsius then, which is quite an eyemark and reference to the climate.
Autumn,
I’m not sure why you feel the grand works of Pielke the Younger are worth examining. Is there anything in particular that draws you to thinking them important? His criticisms of the IPCC are pretty strong given he has a very very minor point to make, and then not in any detail with added bizarre interpretations. I see it all in terms of this webpage, obviously a vehicle for Pielke the Younger’s message rather than a genuine bash at the IPCC.
Adam Leasays
Like it or not Pielke does make some fair points which if flawed should be addressed and shot down. Pretending they aren’t relevant by responding “Yawn” doesn’t make it so.
zebrasays
Autumn, you would have to explain what the relevance is.
“Someone said something on them internets” doesn’t qualify, by itself, as necessarily worthy of discussion.
You might get a response if you would be more forthcoming.
Geoff Miell, thanks for that. I watched the graphic. Wow. But without watching the whole thing, is there an estimated total amount somewhere I wonder? If we are currently adding 100 million barrels a day . I guess that link I originally posted about it is it.
So if about half has ended up in the atmosphere, and more will in the future with absorption overload in the oceans and vegetation, to date is that roughly 550 to 75o trillion barrels of burned oil (carbon) floating around in the sky? On an earth with a surface livable area comparable in size to the skin on an apple? My math sucks so I wonder if I’m missing something.
Ron R.says
Man, I got trillion mixed up with billion again. It’s been one of those lives.
If you are a US citizen, you may be bad off with millions billions and trillons in addition to that incredibly silly length unit by 8 irrational numbers down in the muds of the river Thames at Greenwhich. And just think of gallons and pounds and barrels.
Only the paint of beer is reliable..
Pythagoreanism you see, pythagoreanism , i repeat… and lacks of the same over there in the states.
But, in italian. by the Billiarde…….
Uno Deca Cento Mille, Million Milliard Billion Billiard Trillion Trilliard and so on.
Could it be easier?
and the US National depts could come in order.
Cento dinare…… cento cinquante, mille lire, millione milliarde….. they learn it.
Geoff Miellsays
Ron R.: – “But without watching the whole thing, is there an estimated total amount somewhere I wonder?”
Some examples I see:
1. YouTube video animation titled Time-lapse history of global CO2 emissions by humans 1751-2008, published 27 Sep 2013, duration 0:01:10. This version now includes emissions data from 1751-2008, made available in 2011 by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The animation indicates the total annual CO₂ emissions (in million tonnes) for each year, from 1751-2008. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAhZ1fA1AJs
2. YouTube video titled A Brief History of CO2 Emissions, published 13 Sep 2017 by Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, duration 0:08:16. Together with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), the Urban Complexity Lab of the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam (FHP) developed an animated short movie that visualizes the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of the past – and the possible future. In the year 2000, at around time interval 0:01:42, the tally for total global emissions exceeds 906 Gt CO₂, and then the tally fades out above 1077 Gt CO₂, before reaching the year 2010. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7S0D1iucY
3. On Mar 29, Nature published an open access paper by Matthew W Jones et. al. titled National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. This paper introduces a new dataset of national contributions to global warming caused by historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide during the years 1851–2021, which are consistent with the latest findings of the IPCC. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02041-1
Ron R.: – “…to date is that roughly 550 to 75o trillion barrels of burned oil (carbon) floating around in the sky?”
I seriously doubt it’s in the hundreds of trillions of barrels range. Are you referring to barrels of oil (energy equivalent) for human-induced activities in the production of all carbon-based fuels (coal, peat, oil, gas, timber/wood, etc.) since about 1750 (or some other time interval)? Or are you referring to just total global oil production (or perhaps total liquid fuels), and over what period?
No, it was just a stupid mistake on my part, Geoff. Mixing some words up. Part of the problem is that I’m using a phone with auto-wrong, as I call it (auto correct) and a tiny screen. Maybe also too much to think about too. :/ I appreciate your efforts.
“Jones says that we have used at least 135 billion barrels of oil since 1870…”
“ODAC’s 944 billion barrels is thus the equivalent of 135 billion tonnes.” Science Daily
So a tonne is equal too a barrel here?
From above, “But using the estimates above, if we’ve used somewhere between 1.1 trillion and 1.5 trillion barrels of oil since the beginning of time…”. 2019
A crude oil will typically have an API between 15 and 45 degrees. Higher API indicates a lighter (lower density) crude. Lower API indicates a heavier (more dense) crude. Generally, lighter (high API) crudes are more valuable because they yield more high-value light products when run through a refinery.
Light crude is typically in the 35-45 API range, which includes most of the highest valued crudes such as Brent and WTI. Crudes lighter than 45 are typically considered extra-light crude or condensates and are valued lower than light crude because they contain a lot of light ends such as propane and butane. A medium crude is in the 25-35 API range, and a heavy crude is in the 15-25 API range. Anything below 15 API would be considered an extra-heavy crude.
Permit me to give you all a very practical advice from my own experience.
Instead of diiscussing eventually also denying global warming, turn the question around and discuss the o9pposite, namely global cooling., and try and deny that.
The cool side of the globe is not the poles. The poles would have melted very long ago if they were to take all that warmth.
The cool side of the globe is the tropopause, the so called isoterm layer, that envelpos the very globe all around at 8 Km heighth at the poles and 17 Km over Kilimanjaro. I have been there 12 Km high by Lufthansa south of Island. The outdoor thermometer waved between – 65 to -70 celsius in bright afternoon sunshine autumnal equinox about 45 deg north. That is colder than midnight midwinter in Siberia. And this fact and why the lapse-rate suddenly does not sink anymore above there, rather rises a bit, must be given a true, physical explainatuion first, in order for you all to qualify for the climate dispute.
Because, else you will not know what climate is about.
Now, what heats us?
That is a round relativistic phaenomenon measuring 30 seconds of arch as seen from here, keeping 5750 Kelvin on its surface. Radiating Bolzmann on a rather continouis Planc- spectrum.
And what cools us?
That is another relativistic phaenomenon, that is also quite round measuring 2 pi minus 30 arch seconds as seen from here and keeping 3 Kelvin radiating the same way. And our radiator in that direction is the Tropopause. wherefore it is so incredibly cold all around
The mean of those 2 relativistic phaenomena comes to about -18 Celsius here on earth and can be checked up by the moon, its mean temperature integrated all around, The moon being a sphaerical grey stone in Vacuum that rotates 1AU from the nearest star.
Now, if we measure anything else here where we live, it is because it is summer, or because we heat or…. because it does not all radiate on continous Planc- spectra.
I repeat…..
That formula explains it all.
And to study that, we must study quantum mechanics and microchosmic sciences.
It is as easy as that for all of you, and you can resign on your Perpetuum Mobilers and Evapotranspirations. that hardly cool the earth at all.
The Earth exists in, and is getting cooled by the BIG BANG situatiuon. The chill of space everywhere around us also in bright sunshine.
Venus, brilliant white at 0.7 AU from the sun is said to keep about -40 celsius on top of its clouds with sun right against it. And 460 celsius on the ground. That is deep cherryred heat, above the melting temperature even of zink.
I asked Prof.Emeritus Jan Erik Solheim at their “Klimapizza” downtown:
“The ground temjperatures on Venus…” I said, knowing that exactly that is a very hot potatoe.
( Because It is James Hansens fameous Royal Thought on behalf of NASA GISS.)
“Oh yes, there is so high pressure there.. smile smile,.. “‘
……….. Prof. Em. J. Solheim of theoretical Astrophysics UiO.no replied kindly
Then I knew that Solheim also has a large hole in his head because he most probably has had his “Dr” dissertation and professorship on the Party Quote in the good old days. The Party with P, P for Party.
Moral:
Beware of me, I know how to ask and examine people.
But see that practical formula of what cools us and heats us and what is in between namely Microchosmos. Then it clears up and you will know what it is about.
@crap-O-mountain says: – ” … formula of what cools us and heats us…”
ms: — You’ve come up again with a wonderful heap of scrambled nonsense.
3423 letters – one dumber than the other – you probably loved playing on the dung heap as a child – with your little bucket and shovel. Three letters would have been enough to answer what is really cooling or heating the earth. ——————————— EEI —————- ———————Earth Energy Imbalance – ever heard of this??? ——–. Only lower solar irradiance / higher albedo / or higher outgoing longwave radiation can cool the planet. And vice versa, it requires higher solar radiation or decreasing albedo / ORL to warm the planet.
– So NO – it is NOT Lufthansa or a hot potatoe that is heating up the Big Bang, climate pizza & the Venus of Solheim.
Your intention here in the forum is quite obvious. You try to turn the forum into a chicken run with big dunghills in the middle and on top YOU sit as a rooster and announce crap to us three times a day.
!!! – Watch out for ovens and foxes.
The question is, what cools the planet? What cools te engine? and what heats it?
The fameous cooler for the coolwater cools the engine, and what further cools that cooler?
Then, what heats the engine? if left aqlone it will adapt to enviromental climate temperature. Then, what heats it above that so it has to be cooled also, else it will be overheated?
And between that, there is a cooler- thermostat.
Scürlers seem not to have learnt such tings.
For ovens, I am an expert really and can show to science in press.
For froxes and other canides I am not an expert, rather but amateur. But we have strychnine, and “revesaks” fox scissers, blacksmith work. Ande the Felidæ tackle them easily. Use candlelight or soft incadescent lamp light behind a red gold ruby glass, and they see nothing whereas we see them easily.
Berries of Daphne mezereum in the climate is known to kill them efficiently. .
Chuck Hughessays
Just stop already. Your word salad posts are giving me a headache!
Really?
Perhaps my medicine works then on those who must have it that way.
Namely
Old trolls and wooden sculls.
Asbestos- concrete- brains.
Calcified tissues.
They are so settled in their professional, socially and geographically , historically provincial style of thoughts so they must have it all smoothly their way, “Business as usual”. And will never understand.
”
It is important to know who they are then, somehow to fish out or smoke out the old and conservative trolls
That`s maybe what I am here for.?
One should do it in Krjeml also, but maybe someone else is doing the same inside there in our days. It may seem so. They are really in pain and suffer.
— His intention here in the forum is quite obvious. He tries to turn the forum into a chicken run with big dunghills in the middle and on top HE sits as a rooster and announce crap to us three times a day.
Translate it with google and find him under the pseudonym “heidrun’s hen house”. (LOL)
He spreads the same intellectual shit and oscillating macarel soup also in Europe.
Better you laugh – instead of feeling a headache… I`m afraid we’ll have to get used to such idiots in the future.
Barton Paul Levenson says // 31 MAR 2023 AT 5:59 AM
” ms: I asked you or invited you to discuss the CERES data 2000-2020, albedo and GHE.
BPL: You don’t know how to calculate a trend, do you? Or what error bars mean.
It’s an old denier trope that “It’s not carbon dioxide, it’s albedo!” Sometimes they cite CERES. Sometimes they cite Pallé. The one thing they will not do is do the math. Usually because they can’t.
ms: I’ll burn down your sheepfold. All I have to do is keep my legs still and grin silently.
BPL: Not sure what this refers to. But in case you didn’t know, transmitting threats by electronic media is a violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1983 (the Helms Act). Violations are punishable by up to
five (5) years in jail and fines up to $20,000.00. ”
———————————–
MS: — All trends of my GEB (2023-2026) from CERES ebaf 4.2 including error bars are calculated and published by Trenberth, Loeb, Wild – NASA & NOAA. If you don’t like the fact that the Earth’s albedo has fallen by -1.4W/m², while the climate forcing from CO2 contributes only 0.6W/m² during the last 20 years, please complain elsewhere (preferably at Sunday mass with your pastor). Your pathetic overview goes even further…
You fantasize about punishment and still haven’t understood that you already have one foot in front of the Last Judgment. Do you think stupid cretins and their sheepfolds are spared?
If you are threatened again because someone keeps his legs still and grins silently, – then call your mom with your flip phone first.
ms: If you don’t like the fact that the Earth’s albedo has fallen by -1.4W/m², while the climate forcing from CO2 contributes only 0.6W/m² during the last 20 years,
BPL: It’s a “fact” only in your mind. You’re also comparing 20 years for one effect to 200 years for the other. You know what they say about apples and oranges.
ms: please complain elsewhere (preferably at Sunday mass with your pastor).
BPL: I’m a Presbyterian.
ms: You fantasize about punishment
BPL: Projection.
nigeljsays
CO2 causes warming which then causes the melting of ice sheets and changes to cloud cover thus reduced albedo. I thought this was expected, and so not unusual..
@nigelj says: – ” CO2 causes warming which then causes … changes to cloud cover thus reduced albedo. I thought this was expected, and so not unusual..
ms: — Nigelj – then please explain to us which physical, chemical or pseudo-scientific changes in cloud albedo usual is caused by the higher CO2 concentration. (preferably with a link to a scientific paper on the subject)
For 2 years I have been offering decreasing evaporation or relative humidity as a cause and explanation for decreasing cloud albedo, which has also been observable with satellite-based measurements for decades.
If you’re feeling warm now… it’s your own fault.
Incidentally, one can very easily die from a lack of logic if one has answered the question
– “to be – or not to be” – incorrectly at the wrong time / in the wrong place / or with the wrong state of mind.
nigeljsays
Macias Shurly
Some references listed below on how anthropogenic warming changes cloud cover, especially a loss of low level cloud cover:
“Observations have shown, however, that warmer temperatures seems to create less dense, low-level clouds instead. The evidence we have so far suggests that this effect occurs because, as temperature increases, the air near the surface becomes drier, causing the cloud base to rise and reducing the cloud layer thickness.”
“Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet.”
“Scientists predict that climate change will increase evaporation, leading to an increase in rainfall globally – although there will be considerable variation on a regional level. But increased rainfall does not simply translate into more clouds. Instead, changing conditions will affect how and where clouds form and how they behave.
“In some areas, climate change will probably cause more low clouds to form, which could offset a rise in global temperature. In mid-latitudes, however, low cloud cover is expected to decrease.”
Im not exactly sure what sources of decreased evaporation and alleged related decreased cloud cover, you refer to because I dont read all the comments, but perhaps you mean deforestation.
Global deforestation started in earnest as far back as the 1600’s and has continued to this day. About half of the deforestation happened before 1900 yet there was no significant global warming 1600 – 1900. So deforestation with associated cloud cover changes doesn’t seem to have caused significant global warming. So it looks likely that 20th century warming was caused mostly by CO2.
Deforestation reduces evapotranspiration and has some effects on local surface temperatures.
” Im not exactly sure what sources of decreased evaporation and alleged related decreased cloud cover, you refer to because I dont read…”
ms: — Evaporation from agricultural, forestry and urban land has decreased extensively to date on 72% (94 million km²) of the ice-free land area (130 million km²).
… to the fact that over this total area of ~93.6 million km² up to now
~ 6800 km³ / year = (~10% of the evaporation over land areas)
less evaporation takes place, because precipitation, irrigation and service water flows too quickly towards the rivers & oceans.
Such a massive loss of evaporation on the land surface must also cause changes in the overlying troposphere.
Relative humidity (RH) has been decreasing for decades with a trend of up to ~ -0.22% per decade. For our atmosphere with a total volume of water (vapour) of ~13000 km³, a drop in RH by 1% at a constant temperature of e.g. 16°C means a loss of ~170 km³ of absolute humidity.
If we wanted to compensate for this 1% loss, ~ 40 x 170 km³ (6800km³) would have to be additionally evaporated per year, since the average residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is only ~9 days. As additional evaporation in a GEB/land, this volume corresponds to an evaporation of ~3.5W/m² or 45L/m² and quantifies the loss of evaporative landscape due to changed land use from around 1948 to 2022 today.
The inevitable increase in sensible heat flux and ground temperature totaling ~3.5W/m² largely explains the temperature increase over land surfaces during this period.
– Anyone who denies CO2 as a GHG and warming climate driver is blind in at least one eye.
– Anyone who denies UHI and/or the loss of evaporative landscapes and clouds may be blind in the other eye.
We’ve had enough of one-eyed “climate experts”…start reading authors who take a more complete view of climate.
In the IPCC graphic below (2021) you correctly find global irrigation (~1000km³) as a cooling climate driver – !!! but why is the graphic missing the drainage of the continents (6800km³) described above as a warming climate driver??? !!!
Are there one-eyed amateurs at work???
BTW – 6800km³/y of evaporation corresponds to ~ 1.3% of the total annual evaporation, which has been strongly correlated with global cloud formation since Aristotle described the water cycle.
Victorsays
Geoff Miell says
Observed global mean surface temperature warming rate has been about +0.18 °C per decade (best linear fit) for the period 1970 to 2015.
V: Interesting choice of dates. From the mid-to-late 1970s until 1998 surface temperatures did indeed warm considerably. From then until 2015 they warmed only very slightly if at all. (See the Fyfe et al. paper I’ve already referenced.) So what’s the point of lumping them together to produce a highly misleading “trend”?
GM: See Fig 19 showing the global mean surface temperature anomaly (relative to 1880-1920 baseline) for the historical record period 1880 to 2022, plus a projection of between +0.36 and +0.27°C per decade warming rates out to 2050, presented in the Hansen et. al. pre-print paper titled Global warming in the pipeline https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474
V: This graph clearly shows the difference between the two periods I referenced above, the turning point clearly visible from 1998 on. The hiatus from 1998 through 2015 that’s got so many so worked up is even more evident in the following graphs:
GM: Observed sea level rise is accelerating:
1993-1998: +1.5 mm per year
1998-2012: +3.2 mm per year
2012-2018: +5.0 mm per year
V: Yes, if you carefully select your endpoints you can tease out just about any numbers that suit you. According to a paper published in Nature in 2016, “current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245
If you select 2015 as your endpoint you can indeed claim an acceleration. But sea levels appear to have decelerated from then to 2016 when the above mentioned paper was published. Examining the overall picture we see a steady climb with various wobbles but no evidence of long-term acceleration.
GM: See the graph displayed in the YouTube video titled Sea Level Rise Can No Longer Be Stopped, What Next? – with John Englander from time interval 0:27:20. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvqY2NcBWI8
V: That presentation is laughable. He wants very much to see evidence of acceleration in that graph, but as he himself states, “it’s a pretty straight line.” Nevertheless, he sees “the early stage of exponential growth.” A bit of wishful thinking no doubt as there is no evidence of exponential growth anywhere in that graph.
V: That presentation is laughable. He wants very much to see evidence of acceleration in that graph, but as he himself states, “it’s a pretty straight line.” Nevertheless, he sees “the early stage of exponential growth.” A bit of wishful thinking no doubt as there is no evidence of exponential growth anywhere in that graph.
BPL: That’s because you don’t read such things from a graph. You find them by statistical analysis of the data in digital form. There are tests for whether a time series is experiencing exponential growth or not, and you can’t conclude yes or no by eyeballing a chart.
jgnfldsays
Sadly, “eyeballing” is V’s primary regression technique in all cases as we’ve seen with his various “wiggle analyses”. This is just one subset.
V’s “analysis” here kinda’ reminds of those old Kelvin plots starting at O degrees K deniers used to publish to “prove” there wasn’t any positive trend.
I have tried with a prersumably straight wooden ruler on the screen and by sheere “eyeballing” when you look with one eye along it to examine its straightness. .
Especially by “eyeballing” it as suggested, , there cannot be any more doubt that it curves also, upwards.
That Banana is curved,
as theoretically predicted.
So, I tend to conclue here that a lot of people hardly learnt analytic geometry and pattern recognition on elementary level. Not even how to “eyeball”.
It is sad.
It is symptoms of basic sensual and recognitional errors by consceptual defects.
But I have found that before in many other aspects. namely elementary and large holes in their very sensual and recognitional conscepts, swarming and performing- teaching on the free market at bright daylight. Cyclopes and Trolls and everything.
One must be aware of it, and people should learn how to cross- examine it.
It is not about opinions. Opinions is only a secondary consequense of it
. It is about basic physio9logical, sensual and consceptual abnormities and defects on individual level that are being hidden.
It is incureable. Some large individs can only hope for their next incarnation.
But knowing oneself for it and how to seek help and where to ask, , makes that one can live with it.
As a training example:
Red-green colour blinds for instance, called Daltonism, , should not be set to pick strawberries or craneberries- lingonberries. and not be allowed to instruct and “judge” others boldly on the same, as they hardly see the colour difference between blood and motor oil.
Not even to “judge” themselves or their next person on cherrypicking.
You often represent a blatant shortcut monocausal monocultural style that I cannot accept.
Once it was about Earthshine, where I by facultary order congratulates anything that can observe measure or quantify anything by a next and systematically independent empirical procedure..
Fools did also disqualify radio astronomy due to “errorbars smile smile” given by very dirty mirrors and results, mirrors full of open meshes, corrosion and birdshit. Today, radio astronomy has the worlds record of angular resolution by distance. .
The one method does not conquer or compeat sporty or commercially with the next, they complement each other.
Take the example finding north. The compasses is fameous but-…..
then we have the sun and a clock… but it may be night and it may be cloudy and that clock is hardly calibrated. A severely advanced naval chronometer was a MUST! in pre- electric days, else you could miss an island by longitude in the Pacific and die ofv thirst Thus never badger and ridicule huyghens pendulum in Cardani mount, by temperature compensated elastic forces It works independently of external accelerating forces and isw antimagnetic. .
Horologium moscillatorium is holy.
Then the polar star, not quite accurate but far better than your compasses. But again it may be cloudy.
I have withnessed radio- bearing at near gale in the north sea. You need the map position of 2 radio transmitters on land. And the same could be done rather accurately by an old radio with ferrite rod antenna. In cloudy weather.
But if all that is not at hand, you can also try and judge the sunny and the north side of trees, anthills and rocks, at higther altitudes.
How many scientifric methods have we got now?
Does any of them rule out any next?
And should any of theese rather be forgottenn and disqualified because of “error bars” and “confidence” and “statistics”?
If so, then you display and betray that you hardly know what north east south west is about and how it works.
I have the same very often in chemistery and elsewhere and everyday How to be scientific and how not to be helpless in critical situations and how to grasp what it is about and how things work and are connected.
Lets say you are to take and to use medicines or decide on food and mushroms. Then you need more than one and only one analytic method. The enlighted way is 3 good reasons. by 3 systematically independent operational empirical methods before you dare to deliver or dare to conlude. and to swallow.
That is the basic principle of stating proof regardless of faculty. I learnt it from the forensic toxicological laboratory where their results could change the rights and destiny of people.
It is further how “The alternatives” here are to be taken and treated, thus rather train it.
Never fight that good old civilized and scientific rule of life and behaviours. Do not teach numerology over geometry oscilloscopy and servography on behalf of “you” or “one”. the anonymeous collective expertise that is to be trusted.
If you are one and yourself without “peers” and have to know it and decide right, then better orientate by that analytic facultary rule.
Ask the doctor, ask yourself, ask a veterinarian also remember we are fur animals, and ask the patient. Then you have 4 systematically independent empirical methods.
Exactly right. For one obvious thing, the visibility of trend in a graph of a timeseries is highly dependent upon the scaling of x- and y-axes. Hence, JG’s:
V’s “analysis” here kinda’ reminds of those old Kelvin plots starting at O degrees K deniers used to publish…
Though, sad to say, they still *are* pushing them, for instance on Twitter. Saw one just the other day.
jgnfldsays
I don’t have a twit account, thankfully! I have a facebook account but only for local gardening and photog groups and NEVER use it otherwise. Life is too short at my age!
Geoff Miellsays
Victor: – “Interesting choice of dates. From the mid-to-late 1970s until 1998 surface temperatures did indeed warm considerably. From then until 2015 they warmed only very slightly if at all.”
It seems to me you refuse to accept the inconvenient data from the GISS analysis. And it seems the NOAA, HadCRUT and Berkeley Earth analyses correlate – see Gavin’s post on 13 Jan 2023 at RealClimate headlined 2022 updates to the temperature records. https://www.realclimate.org/images/compare_sat_2023-600×386.png
Victor: – “This graph clearly shows the difference between the two periods I referenced above, the turning point clearly visible from 1998 on. The hiatus from 1998 through 2015 that’s got so many so worked up…”
There has been no “hiatus”, Victor. Per the GISS analysis, the top 10 hottest years on instrumental record include:
#01: 2020: +1.29 °C
#02: 2016: +1.28 °C
#03: 2019: +1.24 °C
#04: 2017: +1.19 °C
#05: 2015 & 2022: +1.16 °C
#07: 2021 & 2018: +1.12 °C
#09: 2014: +1.01 °C
#10: 2010: +0.99 °C
What Fyfe et. al. paper? Is it the 2016 paper Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown? That’s a little over 7 years ago – I’d suggest it’s now ancient history! Or is it perhaps the even earlier 2013 paper Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years? Why are you cherry-picking (an) older paper(s)?
I think it would be foolish to bet that Hansen & colleagues are significantly wrong on this issue. Who are you Victor? Have you published any peer-reviewed scientific papers related to climate, Victor? What makes you think you know better than many, many peer-reviewed published climate scientists?
Victor, why are you referring to a HadCRUT5 non-infill graph? And why have you sourced it from climate4you? Why haven’t you sourced any HadCRUT5 graphs from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? Would that be inconvenient for your narrative, Victor? https://www.uea.ac.uk/web/groups-and-centres/climatic-research-unit/data
Victor: – “Yes, if you carefully select your endpoints you can tease out just about any numbers that suit you.”
That’s the inconvenient data. Why are you offering the 2016 Nature paper, Victor? The data range is shorter, from year 1993 to 2016, whereas the graph provided by John Englander has a longer range, from year 1993 to 2018, and the acceleration trend is clearly evident.
The NASA graph you refer to clearly shows an increased rate of sea level rise, around +5 mm/yr, from the year 2012 to 2022 interval. The average rate of change of +3.4 mm/yr is for the whole dataset period, from 1993 to 2022. IMO, the NASA graph corroborates and is an extension (i.e. larger dataset) of the graph provided by John Englander. Victor, thanks for providing additional evidence/data that reinforces my point – SLR is clearly accelerating. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/471
Victor: – “A bit of wishful thinking no doubt as there is no evidence of exponential growth anywhere in that graph.”
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
On 22 August 2022, at the Cryosphere 2022 Symposium at the Harpa Conference Centre Reykjavik, Iceland, glaciologist Professor Jason Box presented a graph showing accelerating land ice loss from 1971 through to 2019, for the Arctic (including Greenland), Greenland only, Arctic (without Greenland) and Antarctica (1992-2017) from time interval 0:12:47. Per the displayed graph, the rates of eustatic sea level contributions from land ice loss have been accelerating decade by decade. I’d suggest the exponential growth of the curves are clearly evident. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6QIDJIcUQ
And it seems you haven’t responded to the overwhelming evidence of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extents diminishing, or the upper ocean heat content increasing. Just ignore anything that’s too difficult and inconvenient for your ideological narrative to contend with, aye Victor?
“If you select 2015 as your endpoint…..blablablabla,..”
I checked up your reference sealevel nasa gov with a long enough ruler that I allways have at hand for screen examination, and found obvious upwards curving beyond any doubt and in the noises, from 1993 to 2022.
It seems more and more to me that you may be some kind of an “influenzer” or political agent , even if it is only in your own illusions, that is systematically teaching people against all solid learning of critical scientific thoughts and elementary methods, even against analytic geometry and the closer checkup of empirical graphs.
I have my own empirical eyemarks on the sealevel, on 1, loppeskjæret, 2, Småskjær, and in 3 Vindfangebukta Frogn pr Drøbak. It is slowly getting apparent there. The fameous and very predictable landrising in our area for centuries and millenia of which there are obvious natural and artificial marks on land that can be dated, , is suddenly slowing down
I would hate to have to change my mind on that on anyones recommendation. Or to have anyones smearwords to that also.
Unluckily I confused them Victor an Matthias Schürle..
This is an answer ratrher to Victors denial of sea level rise acceletration as can be seen also by empirical graphs examination and in nature.
My wiew of Schürle as an “influenzer” or progressive political agent even if that is only in his own illusion, is roughly appliciablew the same way also to Victor.. They seem to be serving under an illusionary “thinktank” or secret closed society where they are instructed, both of them.
nigeljsays
Victor. You seem to believe warming stopped in 1998. Please be aware that the last 12 months were significantly warmer than years like 2006, 1998, for example, according to the surface temperature data sets like Hadcrut (that you posed) and Giss. This is despite the last 12 months being a la nina year, and these tend to be cooler than average. So how long are you going to go on fooling yourself that warming stopped in 1998?
jgnfldsays
Remember how the “escalator” shows how on can chop up the temp record into many sections with downward trends (with a careful selection of start/end pointsand zero with a positive trend? Vic is simply–but only partially–doing the same thing.
Present version showing the last half century consisting ENTIRELY of “hiatuses” is here…
I’m surprised he never uses it as “evidence” there has never been any warming since the 70s.
Adam Leasays
“So how long are you going to go on fooling yourself that warming stopped in 1998?”
About the same length of time the UK government is going to tell us the massive delays at Dover have nothing to do with Brexit, despite also admitting Brexit has made border controls with the continent longer and more complicated.
There’s facts and evidence, and there’s what people want to believe, and they are not always the same things.
Victorsays
MA Rodger: Victor the Troll,
You misrepresent Spencer Weart who writes of the present knowledge of the modern temperature trend:-
“If you compared the irregularly climbing curve of temperatures since the 1860s with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the effects of the rise of greenhouse gases with adjustments for volcanic eruptions and other aerosol pollution, variations in solar activity, and ocean cycles, the match was remarkably close within the known margin of observational error.”
V: Here’s the complete quote from Weart’s history:
“The scientists who brushed aside Callendar’s claims were reasoning well enough. (Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions. And the physics of radiation and climate was indeed too poorly known at that time to show whether adding more gas could make much difference.)”
I fail to see how the passage you’ve quoted above somehow cancels out Weart’s assessment of Callendar’s claim. Nor can I understand how a direct quote can be a misrepresentation.
MAR: just as you misrepresent Fyfe et al (2016) ‘Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown’ who say, for instance:-
“A point of agreement we have with Ref. 26 [Lewandowsky et al 2015] concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “‘stalled’, ‘stopped’, ‘paused’, or entered a ‘hiatus’”.
V: You fail to include the passage that immediately follows: “Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices
include ‘reduced rate of warming’, ‘decadal fluctuation’ or ‘temporary slowdown’ — all try to convey the primary mechanism involved, which in the recent example is likely to be internal decadal variability.”
Clearly the authors are concerned with the language in which the data “has been framed,” lest such terminology be used to further the “denialist” cause. Nevertheless they did in fact frame their findings using such terminology.
In any case, the passage I quoted above makes it clear that the temperature record during the period in question can be attributed to “internal decadal variability” rather than greenhouse gas forcings. which, according to their research, had a minimal effect.
Victor the Troll,
You do indeed quote Weart but you also pass judgement in that you said“The runup in temperature from ca. 1910 through ca. 1940 could not have been caused by CO2 emissions, according to climate scientist Spencer Weart.” Weart wrote no such thing. He wrote:-
“The scientists who brushed aside Callendar’s claims were reasoning well enough. (Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions. And the physics of radiation and climate was indeed too poorly known at that time to show whether adding more gas could make much difference.) Yet if Callendar was mistaken when he insisted he could prove global warming had arrived, it was a fortunate mistake.
Weart is saying the recent warming seen in 1940 was not “mainly caused” by CO2 but by “some kind of natural cyclical effect.” You then use your misjudgement of Weart to support your ridiculous assertion that CO2 is not correlated with global temperature. Yet elsewhere in his account of the changing understanding of the role of CO2 in AGW Weart directly contradicts your foolishness saying that assessments of global temperature since the 1860s which calculate “the effects of the rise of greenhouse gases with adjustments for volcanic eruptions and other aerosol pollution, variations in solar activity, and ocean cycles” provide a “match … remarkably close within the known margin of observational error.” Or if you feel that is not direct enough, his concluding line in the precis of that page ‘The Modern Temperature Trend’ runs “The specific pattern of changes matched the predicted effects of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
As for your attempts to use the “early 2000s warming slowdown” to further your nonsense, I am surprised you don’t note that Weart also covers this particular temperature wobble. Perhaps his writing on the subject is not to your liking. (An omission that’s called “cherry pickng”.) Instead you toss Fyfe et al (2016) into your denial-fest, a strange decision as Fyfe et al were setting out the role of CO2 and other GHGs in recent warming trends and how these trends will include slowdowns due to other factors. They even pass judegement on the ” the so-called “big hiatus” from the 1950s to the 1970s” but their words doesn’t suit your dellusions so are something else that goes unmentioned.
Your crazy campaign here since October 2014 has been to deny any role of CO2 in that warming, rather than the dominant role demonstrated by the science. Such nonsense is at vaiance with Fyfe et al who are quite clear as to where they stand.
“Since the Industrial Revolution, human activities have caused net positive forcing of the climate system, leading to overall warming of the surface. Superimposed on this forced anthropogenic response are internal variability, cooling and recovery from volcanic eruptions, and small signals of solar irradiance changes.”
Victorsays
Your extraordinary ability to spin and blow smoke never ceases to impress me, MAR. My quote from Weart was in reference to his view of one particular climate trend, nothing more. I’m fully aware of his views regarding the evidence as a whole, and have never claimed Weart was a “denier,” which he clearly was not. But that has NOTHING to do with his assessment of the early 20th century temperature rise, which is crystal clear. Your clumsy effort to concoct a straw man is embarrassingly obvious.
As for your response to the Fyfe et al. paper, that’s just more straw man nonsense. As with Weart I understand very well that Fyfe and his collaborators are not climate “deniers,” so the quote you offered is no surprise. Yet it has NO bearing on their conclusion that the hiatus was indeed real. Their acceptance of the climate change meme overall makes their support of the hiatus all the more impressive.
Victor the Troll,
Your brainless adherence to this ‘no correlation’ nonsense is entirely evident to all but you. Weart is not supporting your grand idea of there being no “meaningful long=term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.” You are away with the fairies if you think otherwise (which you apparently do).
And Fyfe et al (2016) makes plain that there was no ‘hiatus’. They explain there was a ‘slowdown’ in the rate of warming, that warming being driven by rising CO2. So your grand theory that “there is no evidence whatsoever of a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, aside from the brief 20 year period at the end of the previous century, which all but rules out the possibility of a causal relationship, thus placing the entire human-caused “climate change” meme in serious doubt” is your own personal delusion and not in any way true.
jgnfldsays
Nope. Their conclusion was that while warming is ongoing, observed air temps may be modulated by other factors for a short period of time.
Yes, the warming Callendar noted could have been about 1/3 due to GHG forcing, per a back-of-the-envelope estimate I did a few years ago. That would still have allowed Weart to write as he did that is was “mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect.” And as you point out, the period is successfully modeled–including the ‘artificial’ GHE. (Had to use that word, in homage to Callendar.)
Speaking of Callendar, although many of the oldtimers will have already seen this, some here may be interested in my life-and-times piece on him and his climate work:
UAH have reported for March with a monthly TLT anomaly of +0.20ºC, the 7th warmest March on the UAH TLT record behind 2016 (+0.64 ºC), 2010 (+0.39 ºC), 2020 (+0.35 ºC), 1998 (+0.35 ºC), 2004 (+0.23 ºC) & 2019 (+0.22ºC), many of these ENSO-boosted. The chilly anomalies of Jan -0.04ºC and Feb +0.08ºC still result in a chilly start-of-the-year with Jan-Mar sitting in 15th spot, not a great rise on the Jan-Feb 17th spot.
TLT anomalies dipped low in Jan/Feb and are now returning to ‘normal’ values. SAT anomalies showed no dip and early indications show the March anomaly rising above ‘normal’ (eg the CFSR re-analysis showing the second warmest March on record).
You are presenting temperature series here every month as if they were sports records.
That may be polular but it is not how we orientate in the natural sciences..
I have a source Ole Humlums Climate4you, where the global temperature graphs from back to 1980 and from several institutes are served, without comments. Humlum can be taken for serious there. His comments are less valuable. .
But I am having another learning and approach to it by analytical geomettry and laboratory instrumentation oscilloscopy and servography online by passive components possibly un- biased.
There are 2 basically important methods. The input signal via a condenser over a resistor to ground, and signal output to be taken and displayed from the point beween the condenser and the resistor.
That mehod gives the speed of change, as referred to zero ground. The 1.st derivative. By passive unbiased components.
Then the opposite way,
A High resistor over a rather large condenser, and display the fullness emptiness from the top of that large bitty of charge condenser during the times and over the years.
That opposite method is giving the integral and eventual longtime trends. Just like a great lake with small rivers, ………or the magnitude levels of any really great and heavy glacier, or really large and great ocean.
“confidence” and “statistics” and “error bars” is silly dilettantic and far- fetched as long as those functional basics are not defined and understood first, namely “What is going on here? What on earth is it about?..
You can synthetize your signal in any way for your purpose, and hide to people and to yourself how Data are obtained- processed, and stored, through which resistance over which capacity or vice versa. By undefined and secret ground and basic zero earth reference line. And hiding leaks & contaminations in your barrels condensers of samplings. (Good statistics do not uncover systematic errors.)
Then by combining such an CR and RC passive filter highpass and lowpass, make both tuneable by variable resistors, and then with an adjustable positive feedback from output to input, you can uncover even the faintest cycling tendencies in your materials until it goes into cycling spin and only documents itself and nothing else regardless of input..
The rock and heavy metal consumers here will find this disturbing misconsceived and irrelevant, unaware that it sits further by turning knobs in any rock music control panel with eccho amplification by positive feedback for popular room signals.
I have first learnt it on juvenile freak radios, and applied it in updated form for the tecchnical analysis of Baroque pnevmatic oscillators namely very obsolete wind instruments,
That Fourier analysis of physical signal ” on the air” for oscilloscopy and servography by NASA- post- apollo analogue devices could beat anyting else on the free market. And can beat the further commerciallized industrialized dilettantisms of the climate dispute.
It sustains my good ear measurements and physical conscepts of rumbling and splashing and cycling of molecular matter, like we have it also in the climate, further at sea and in the clouds, and not only in the Baroque orchetras.
Wherefrore,……… I would like to have a better discussion also of the negative spikes and values in the worlds climate systems,
Negative spikes and shorttime integrals may be just as important as the top spike records and the integral means and its tendencies.. Namely that of the la Ninas and volcanic eruoptions and sudden and more permanent sulphate- effects in the climate.
Remark the tuneable highpass and the lowpass and the tuneable “Q” – bandpass re- sonance eccho aqmplifying filters for signal and Data -analysis..
Chuck Hughessays
Carbon-monotonous says:
*The rock and heavy metal consumers here will find this disturbing misconsceived and irrelevant, unaware that it sits further by turning knobs in any rock music control panel with eccho amplification by positive feedback for popular room signals.*
*I have first learnt it on juvenile freak radios, and applied it in updated form for the tecchnical analysis of Baroque pnevmatic oscillators namely very obsolete wind instruments,*
*That Fourier analysis of physical signal ” on the air” for oscilloscopy and servography by NASA- post- apollo analogue devices could beat anyting else on the free market. And can beat the further commerciallized industrialized dilettantisms of the climate dispute.*
Chuck: I have two questions for you, Carbon-monotonous…
1. Are you supposed to be taking any medication?
2. What in the fuck are you even talking about?
Between all the misspelled words and disjointed ideas, I can’t understand anything you’re trying to say. You make absolutely no sense at all. And furthermore, don’t bother trying to answer my questions because they’re purely rhetorical, and I seriously doubt I could understand your response.
about Chuck Hughes above his head and begind his back:
“Rock and heavy metal” I wrote. As a “lure” for all those who perform political science on certain pooular , personality strengthening, synthetic Psychopharmaca
Chuck Hughes apparently took the “bait”
Whereby I am able to hang him out and present him and point at him as still another one…….. ……………As an example of what the “fuck” I am talking about.
They are characteristic class enemies, or better, bloody racial enemies of elementary scientific analytic conscepts, definitions, and devices!
I repeat……!
Because they consume it all through industrial LEGO with amplified Mehaphones in kilowatts from the Professional Party with P,…….. (= the PPP)
………………..on the factory floor within Error Bars where the Earth is flat as a military training ground or any conventional concentration camp in the Peoples republic……..
…………..On Party Dope to refresh them the better and to give them a new Personality..
Victor: – “Interesting choice of dates. From the mid-to-late 1970s until 1998 surface temperatures did indeed warm considerably. From then until 2015 they warmed only very slightly if at all.”
GM: It seems to me you refuse to accept the inconvenient data from the GISS analysis.
V: Any attempt to shoehorn those two very different periods to give the impression of a single “trend” is misleading. You don’t have to be an expert to see that.
Victor: – “This graph clearly shows the difference between the two periods I referenced above, the turning point clearly visible from 1998 on. The hiatus from 1998 through 2015 that’s got so many so worked up…”
V: Gavin’s graph shows the same difference.
GM: There has been no “hiatus”, Victor. Per the GISS analysis, the top 10 hottest years on instrumental record include:
#01: 2020: +1.29 °C
#02: 2016: +1.28 °C
#03: 2019: +1.24 °C
#04: 2017: +1.19 °C
#05: 2015 & 2022: +1.16 °C
#07: 2021 & 2018: +1.12 °C
#09: 2014: +1.01 °C
#10: 2010: +0.99 °C
V: Interesting. The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015. Almost all your dates are post-2015, reflecting an abrupt temperature rise usually attributed to a powerful El Nino.
V: This graph also reveals the same difference as cited above — moreover, the “Super El Nino” I referenced is clearly labeled.
GM: What Fyfe et. al. paper? Is it the 2016 paper Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown?
V: That’s the one.
GM: That’s a little over 7 years ago – I’d suggest it’s now ancient history!
V: You’re grasping at straws. That paper reflects research done by some of the best-known supporters of the “climate change” meme, who might have been expected to debunk the “hiatus.” Instead they, with impressive honestly, supported it. As far as I’m concerned this makes it definitive. Whether you see it as outdated means nothing. Even the latest studies will eventually become old. So what?
GM: I think it would be foolish to bet that Hansen & colleagues are significantly wrong on this issue. Who are you Victor? Have you published any peer-reviewed scientific papers related to climate, Victor? What makes you think you know better than many, many peer-reviewed published climate scientists?
V: I’ve never made such a claim. What I’ve always written here is based on my perception of the evidence, NOT any claim to superior knowledge.
GM: Victor, why are you referring to a HadCRUT5 non-infill graph? And why have you sourced it from climate4you? Why haven’t you sourced any HadCRUT5 graphs from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? Would that be inconvenient for your narrative, Victor? https://www.uea.ac.uk/web/groups-and-centres/climatic-research-unit/data
V: I prefer the non-infill graph as it’s based on actual evidence, while the infill graph is based on assumptions. Moreover the Hadcrut 5 non-infill graph is consistent with the picture presented by the satellite data I’ve already referenced: UAH and RISS. The satellite research has no need for infills as it’s based on direct observation rather than the interpretation of land-based measurements of questionable consistency.
GM: Victor: – “Yes, if you carefully select your endpoints you can tease out just about any numbers that suit you.”
That’s the inconvenient data. Why are you offering the 2016 Nature paper, Victor? The data range is shorter, from year 1993 to 2016, whereas the graph provided by John Englander has a longer range, from year 1993 to 2018, and the acceleration trend is clearly evident.
V: I cited that paper as an example of how it’s possible to come up with very different results based on the evaluation of different data points. And no, the acceleration trend is not clearly evident. During any given year it would be possible to claim either acceleration or deceleration depending on measurements taken during some previous time period. In any case, the graph as a whole reveals NO sign of anything remotely alarming, especially when you consider that sea level is being measured in millimeters.
GM: The NASA graph you refer to clearly shows an increased rate of sea level rise, around +5 mm/yr, from the year 2012 to 2022 interval. The average rate of change of +3.4 mm/yr is for the whole dataset period, from 1993 to 2022. IMO, the NASA graph corroborates and is an extension (i.e. larger dataset) of the graph provided by John Englander. Victor, thanks for providing additional evidence/data that reinforces my point – SLR is clearly accelerating. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/471
V: See above.
GM: And it seems you haven’t responded to the overwhelming evidence of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extents diminishing, or the upper ocean heat content increasing. Just ignore anything that’s too difficult and inconvenient for your ideological narrative to contend with, aye Victor?
“V: Interesting. The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015. Almost all your dates are post-2015, reflecting an abrupt temperature rise usually attributed to a powerful El Nino.”
The abrupt temperature rises of the years after 2015 have never been attributed to the 2015 el nino event. Please provide a scientific reference to back up your false claim. Only the temperature rise in 2015 ( and part of 2016) has been attributed (partly) to the powerful 2015 el nino event..
The years following this 2015 el nino from 2016 (late 2016) – 2023 are not related to the 2015 el nino event. They stand alone because they include la nina years in (which tend to be slightly cooler than average) in 2016, 2017 and 2022 and 2023 and a weak el nino in 2018, and 2020 was neutral. Therefore the planet warmed after 2015 – 2016 not because of a large el nino in 2015, but largely due to anthropogenic influences. List of el nino and la nina years:
Victor: – “Any attempt to shoehorn those two very different periods to give the impression of a single “trend” is misleading.”
I’d suggest that’s only in your mind. It seems to me any attempt to challenge your ideological narrative of a so-called warming “hiatus” with overwhelming & compelling evidence/data apparently will be rejected by you, aye Victor? ‘Computer says no’?
Victor: – “Interesting. The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015. Almost all your dates are post-2015, reflecting an abrupt temperature rise usually attributed to a powerful El Nino.”
But not all. Within your so-called 1998-2015 “hiatus” period were some of the 10 hottest years on the instrumental record, per GISS analysis:
#10: 2010: +0.99 °C
#09: 2014: +1.01 °C
#05: 2015: +1.16 °C
And in 2016, just after your so-called 1998-2015 “hiatus” period, was the second hottest year on the instrumental record. Perhaps ‘computer says no’ to that too?
Victor: – “You’re grasping at straws. That paper [i.e. Fyfe et. al. 2016 paper] reflects research done by some of the best-known supporters of the “climate change” meme, who might have been expected to debunk the “hiatus.””
Fyfe et. al. were not privy to the extra 7 years of temperature data that’s available to us now.
Victor: – “I’ve never made such a claim. What I’ve always written here is based on my perception of the evidence, NOT any claim to superior knowledge.”
I’d suggest your perception is constrained by your ideology, despite any compelling evidence/data that challenges it.
Victor: – “I prefer the non-infill graph as it’s based on actual evidence, while the infill graph is based on assumptions.”
Mmm, the HadCRUT5 non-infill graph you refer to is sourced from climate4you. A little check suggests the climate4you website is run by Ole Humlum. Per Wikipedia:
Humlum is a member of the Norwegian climate change denialist organization Climate Realists (Klimarealistene). He is active in Norwegian and Danish climate politics, arguing that current climate change is mainly a natural phenomenon.
Victor: – “Moreover the Hadcrut 5 non-infill graph is consistent with the picture presented by the satellite data I’ve already referenced: UAH and RISS. The satellite research has no need for infills as it’s based on direct observation rather than the interpretation of land-based measurements of questionable consistency.”
I think you mean, consistent with your ideological narrative. Questionable consistency by whom? You? Because it doesn’t fit with your ideological narrative, aye Victor?
Victor: – “And no, the [sea level rise] acceleration trend is not clearly evident.”
It seems to me only you can’t see the SLR acceleration trend because it doesn’t fit with your ideological narrative, aye Victor? Do you at least agree that SLR is rising? I mean, you offered the NASA graph showing the average rate of change of +3.4 mm/yr is for the whole dataset period, from 1993 to 2022. https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/471
And I note that you have ignored my earlier reference to the graph presented by glaciologist Professor Jason Box, in the YouTube video, showing accelerating land ice loss from 1971 through to 2019, for the Arctic (including Greenland), Greenland only, Arctic (without Greenland) and Antarctica (1992-2017) from time interval 0:12:47. I’d suggest the exponential growth of the curves are clearly evident; another inconvenient challenge to your ideological narrative, aye Victor? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6QIDJIcUQ
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function” – Albert Allen Bartlett
Victor; – “I didn’t respond because I have no problem with any of that research. Sea ice melt has no bearing on sea level and ocean heat content means little if it isn’t reflected in sea level rise, which is clearly not the case.”
Sea ice melt is an indicator that the polar regions are warming, and I’d suggest is contradicting the inference of your earlier question: “What “observed warming”?”
Less sea ice extent means more of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the darker polar seas.
Warming oceans expand, raising sea levels.
Warming oceans melt land-based glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica faster, accelerating rising sea levels.
Perhaps you might learn something from glaciologist Eric Rignot, in his presentation to the April 2019 General Meeting of the American Philosophical Society, duration 0:34:59. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOykSCOf0c
2. You cherry-picked the 2018 start date because it was a spike–the biggest El Nino up to that time. That’s cherry-picking. Start from 1997 or 1999 and you don’t get the same effect. Quit cheating.
JCHsays
In that period here was no hiatus in the rise of Ocean Heat Content, which is why V. has no point whatsoever..
“” …The global long-term warming trend is so steady and robust that annual records continue to be set with each new year. The warming has accelerated in recent decades, with a faster rate of warming evident since roughly 1990 (Cheng et al., 2022a, b). …” – L. Cheng
Why are we relitigating settled science? We already know there was no pause in warming. Just because Weaktor didn’t get it the first time is no reason to keep going over and over it.
How about the latest information on sea level rise and how that’s speeding up? I’d like to know more about current projections for the next 20 years or so. Anybody have any information about that?
Geoff Miellsays
Chuck Hughes: – “How about the latest information on sea level rise and how that’s speeding up?”
You may find the YouTube video by glaciologist Professor Jason Box, published 30 Sep 2022, titled Greenland zombie ice and committed sea level rise, duration 0:05:15, of interest. It includes a brief overview of the Nature open access paper by Jason E Box et. al. titled Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise, published 29 Aug 2022. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHbZysQYRO4
From time interval 0:00:16, a graph of ice sheet loss sea level rise contributions (in mm/yr) is displayed for the Greenland ice sheet, Canadian Arctic glaciers, US Arctic (Alaskan) glaciers, Greenland glaciers, Scandinavian glaciers, Russian Arctic glaciers, Antarctic land ice, and other glaciers, for period 2004–2010 – sourced from the Arctic Monitoring & Assessment Programme (AMAP), Figure 9.3 Comparison of Arctic sea level rates 2004–2010 with other global sea level components… https://www.amap.no/maps-and-graphics/search?keywords=arctic+ice#3406
From time interval 0:04:05, a graph of Greenland projected Sea Level Rise (SLR) is displayed, comparing the IPCC’s AR6 SSP585 high emissions scenario with the 2022 Jason Box et. al. paper findings, that includes:
… We find that Greenland ice imbalance with the recent (2000–2019) climate commits at least 274 ± 68 mm SLR from 59 ± 15 × 103 km² ice retreat, equivalent to 3.3 ± 0.9% volume loss, regardless of twenty-first-century climate pathways. This is a result of increasing mass turnover from precipitation, ice flow discharge and meltwater run-off. The high-melt year of 2012 applied in perpetuity yields an ice loss commitment of 782 ± 135 mm SLR, serving as an ominous prognosis for Greenland’s trajectory through a twenty-first century of warming.
Then there’s this video collaboration between Dr. Ella Gilbert & Prof. Jason Box, published 20 Feb 2023, titled biggest loser – Antarctica?, duration 0:04:17. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtNXlmR2Yhw
And this video interview published on 14 Nov 2022, by Nick Breeze speaking with Professor Jason Box about his recent research that identifies the amount of Greenland’s ice sheet that is committed to melting in the coming decades:
0:03:39: “…by end of century, we are talking, you know, just from Greenland, at least fifty centimetres of sea rise…”
If I would read online empirical curves and servography the way you read temperature history graphics, I would be helpless. I could not even report on art surrealism and psychedelics.
You cannot read a drawing or a map with the intension of recognizing objects patterns connections and consequenses without the faintest idea at least, of what it is about, and that the given documents show more than one and only one thing, And with some learnings and ideas and critical experience about the drawing and servograpic or oscillographic tecniques.
Q: What is it and what is it about and how has it been done? For what purpose?
And at judging and using historical drawings maps and documents, an idea about bottom and background reality, the scools and learnings of those who did draw and write and document it, their ideas and intensions and their contemporary techniques of anno dazumal and vin their situation.
If that alltogether is not your higschool and political scientific and commercial facultary learning then quit judging and teasching about other peoples and other cultures documkents. and their eventual misconsceptions and errors.
In your special way, you are comitting culture imperialism on behalf of invading barbarians and rascal burglarshops here, which is quite sinful,
It hurts and violates most of all any healtyhy and necessary Scepsis to geophysical research and discussion.
Even Frank Luntz and Ropy Spencer have betrayed your mission.
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear JCM,
you said 5 Apr 2023 at 8:20 AM
…Alternative themes centre around overall drying of the continents, directly by human intervention, in addition to feedback effects from trace gas, with particular rapid pace over the most recent centuries. ..
The extent in that the hydrological regime of our planet changed during historical era and, particularly, during the last ca 25 years of the remarkable global warming is one of many important points that I would like to learn more about in the discussion forum
I have seen some references asserting that changes in the overall intensity of the global water cycle might be inferred from changes in oxygen and hydrogen nuclide ratios in atmospheric (“meteoric”) water. Should it be indeed possible, I would like to see how these changes fit (or do not fit) with changes in the earth energy imbalance (EEI) that may be, at least in last two or three decades, inferred from satellite measurements.
Should the assumption that non-radiative heat flux in form of latent heat plays a more important role than supposed in current climate models be true (see my question asked in my post of 30 Mar 2023 at 11:46 AM with respect to arguments presented in a relatively recent preprint published by Makarieva et al, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09998 ), the observed changes in the intensity of the global water cycle should in some extent correlate with the observed changes in the EEI.
So far, it is my feeling that the present climate models suggest that changes in hydrological regime (that may be indeed in some extent deliberately changed by various human activities, independently from other parameters driving the climate, such as GHG concentration or surface albedo) are of minor importance in comparison with the other “independent” variables. The possibility that theoretical present climate models could be perhaps tested experimentally is the idea behind the proposed “urban heat wave mitigation” project.
Please feel free to use the link and add the references you suppose ar relevant in this “discussion forum” orgpage, perhaps with a few cells summarizing your most important conclusions presented in the cited articles, your comments thereon and/or the questions that your reading perhaps raised and that could be hopefully clarified subsequently by other participants in the foreseen exchange.
Unluckily that work of Makarieva & al. seems not to be in order and Gavin Schmidt has also stated it short and promptly.
I come to a similar conclusion through a different approach. A series of their argument premises are not credible along with what I tend to know about the same.
That is quite a pity because their intension seems to be the political defence of russian wild and pristine forests. That is also my interest wherefore they should be enlighted and adviced to build other and better arguments, not quasi- scientific ones, that seem easily disqualified from many sides and points of wiew.
As for those fameous urban heat islands;,
That seems to rule only for half of the year and half of the day and less than that in rather most of the worlds land areas.:
Forests seem rather to warm the situation and the terrain. Chop down the woods or simply set fire to it and it becomes severely chill as the gales and the storm comes down to the ground, And there will be more “evaportanspiration” with dangers of desertification where there are conditions for it.
The forests and heathers protects and improoves its own life conditions when first solidly settled. . Not because it “attracks” or “creates” rain and clouds, as it seems to be believed here, But because it binds up the soil by roots and gives it a higher capacity for keeping water in reseve for dry periods. By hitgher porousity and higher adsorption to Humus.
Sandblast on the dunes come when the pioneering wild vegetation is fought against by humans. They wanted their “lawns” with Rainbarrels instead. And stops when that is forbidden by the agricultural highschool.
I looked back into Schäffer & Schachtscyhabel Bodenkunde. Stating that Erosion of soils and topsoils
occurs mostly when a Matthias Schürle has had his will and made it all soaking wet.
Thus it comes when they discuss the world situation in terms of Nevada and Las Vegas.
I’m sorry if so. I was rereading a thread from 2016 where I was nitpicking about his math and I wanted to, very belatedly, apologize. So I compounded the behavior by waiting too long.
nigeljsays
‘”Scary’ new data on the last ice age raises concerns about future sea levels”
Kasha Patel and Chris Mooney
07:50, Apr 06 2023
“At the end of the last ice age, parts of an enormous ice sheet covering Eurasia retreated up to a startling 609 metres per day – more than the length of the Empire State Building, according to a newly-released study.”
“The rate is easily the fastest measured to date, upending what scientists previously thought were the upper speed limits for ice sheet retreat – a finding that may shed light on how quickly ice in Greenland and Antarctica could melt and raise global sea levels in today’s warming world.”
***“The rate is easily the fastest measured to date, upending what scientists previously thought were the upper speed limits for ice sheet retreat – a finding that may shed light on how quickly ice in Greenland and Antarctica could melt and raise global sea levels in today’s warming world.”***
I think we’ve grossly underestimated the rate at which all this ice can melt. I don’t believe we have nearly as much time as we think we do. I have nothing to base my opinion on other, just about every estimate scientists have made concerning time scales have been off the mark. I can easily see large chunks of the WAIS breaking off into the ocean. I don’t know what’s holding all the ice on Greenland back other than the terrain underneath the ice, maybe. Even if it can’t melt all that quickly, the grounding glaciers can separate and float off.
I hope we’re not in for a major surprise.
Geoff Miellsays
Chuck Hughes: – “I think we’ve grossly underestimated the rate at which all this ice can melt. I don’t believe we have nearly as much time as we think we do. I have nothing to base my opinion on other, just about every estimate scientists have made concerning time scales have been off the mark.”
I agree. It seems it’s still too early to see clearly the likely SLR exponential doubling rate. Is it perhaps somewhere between 10 to 40 years? Perhaps we will have enough data by the end of this decade for a better picture, but SLR will likely be unstoppable. I’d suggest we’ve already let the genie out of the bottle!
In the YouTube video by glaciologist Professor Jason Box, published 30 Sep 2022, titled Greenland zombie ice and committed sea level rise, duration 0:05:15, from time interval 0:04:05, a graph of Greenland projected Sea Level Rise (SLR) is displayed, comparing the IPCC’s AR6 SSP585 high emissions scenario with the 2022 Jason Box et. al. paper findings, and Jason Box says:
“Our findings in comparison to current sea level projections, confront us with a shocking reality: The much larger, already locked-in sea level rise, than what ice sheet models project by end-of-century, even under high carbon emissions. Our numbers are twice as large, and don’t even include future warming. The comparison reinforces the likelihood that ice sheet models don’t deliver ice quickly enough, and for a number of known reasons, like today’s models don’t realistically treat underwater melting, bare ice darkening, ice internal heating from increasing meltwater infiltration, and basal lubrication, to name a few.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHbZysQYRO4
I think it’s worth revisiting the 2016 Hansen et. al. paper titled Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous. Section 5.1: Ice sheet mass loss and sea level rise, begins with:
The fundamental question we raise is whether ice sheet melt in response to rapid global warming will be nonlinear and better characterized by a doubling time for its rate of change or whether more linear processes dominate. Hansen (2005, 2007) argued on heuristic grounds that ice sheet disintegration is likely to be nonlinear if climate forcings continue to grow, and that sea level rise of several meters is possible on a timescale of the order of a century. Given current ice sheet melt rates, a 20-year doubling rate produces multi-meter sea level rise in a century, while 10- and 40-year doubling times require about 50 and 200 years, respectively.
There was a paper on this years ago that I have mentioned occasionally as part of the risk-first approach to climate, et al. This not new but it is more detailed.
Of course, none of you listened. You’re never to learn policies cannot wait for more perfect science or we’ll never be able to act. Thus, risk analysis is THE key to accurate analysis overall.
You, collectively, still won’t listen, though, unfortunately.
The ERA5 reanalysis has reported for March with a global SAT anomaly of +0.51ºC, a big rise on the Jan & Feb anomalies (+0.25ºC & +0.29ºC).
March 2023 was the second warmest March on the ERA5 SAT record, below 2016 (+0.63ºC) and above (just) 2019 (+0.51ºC), 2017 (+0.50ºC) & 2020 (+0.49ºC), with 6th warmest 2022 (+0.39ºC), 7th 2018 (+0.27ºC) & 8th 2010 (+0.27ºC).
March 2023 sits 11th in the all-month anomaly ranking.
Despite the big rise in the March anomaly, 2023 still sits as the 5th warmest start to the year, although now closer to 4th-place than to 6th-place. A year-on-year of ERA5 monthly anomalies is posted here Graph 2b
The ENSO predictions are now strongly suggesting an El Niño from July onward with a resulting boost to global temperature anomalies from late 2023. Perhaps 2023 will end up as a top-three warmest year.
Victorsays
My response to Geoff Miell:
As far as “ideology” is concerned, it’s your defensive responses, replete with personal attacks and empty rhetoric, that suggest an ideologically driven bias, whereas I am content to stick with the evidence. As a long time progressive Democrat I have no political ax to grind regarding this issue, only a sense of responsibility to the facts, critical thinking and the scientific method.
The “hiatus” that troubles you so is not some fantasy dreamed up by “deniers”, but a widely accepted phenomenon endorsed by a great many climatologists who have exerted a tremendous amount of time and effort in vain attempts to explain it away (see http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html ). To their credit, the authors of the Fyfe et al. paper have been courageous enough to accept the facts and report them honestly. The evidence is clearly there in the data registered by the UAH and RSS satellites plus the latest HadCrut results.
And yes, there was some slight degree of warming during the “hiatus,” which accounts for those “record breaking” years. However, it was the rapid rise in temperatures over the previous 20 years that produced the baseline making all those records possible.
You can pontificate till you’re blue in the face but the facts remain: no evidence that CO2 emissions were responsible for the temp. rise during the first 40 years of the previous century. No reason to hold CO2 responsible for any warming during the following 40 years, as there WAS no warming during that period. No reason to deny the reality of the 18 year “hiatus” during which temperatures rose only slightly while CO2 levels soared. As for the temperature spike subsequent to the hiatus, it’s generally attributed to the effects of a major El Nino despite your denial. As for what followed, temperatures have been gradually subsiding since then — see. for example https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend
In any case, after a period of over 130 years wherein all but 20 show no correlation, it’s far too late to claim a long-term trend based on events of the last few years.
Victor, regarding the supposed “hiatus” in warming of our climate system, you accidentally presented several non-scientist sites instead of reputable science sources.
Please refer instead to the report by Karl et al, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” in the journal Science on June 4, 2015. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa5632
Abstract: “Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.”
If you can’t get to that report, please check the following NOAA article, which states the following about trends in planetary heat content during that “hiatus” some wanted to believe in. Here’s a bit from it:
“For the 27-year period 1993 to 2019, they found 53 percent of the global ocean exhibited statistically significant warming trends versus 3 percent of the ocean showing significant cooling trends. For the 52-year period from 1968 to 2019, the imbalance grew markedly: 72 to 79 percent of the ocean area showed warming, while only 1 to 3 percent exhibited cooling. When trends were estimated over shorter 5-year periods, the areas and imbalances were much smaller, with 24% warming and 17% cooling. ”
Just thinking. I’m wondering if anyone has done an article on all the other things the deniers have said about climate change. Actual quotations. I remember for the loooongest time they claimed that there was NO global warming. Flat out denied it. Singer and the others. All their most emphatic statements and how long they made them.
NOW they claim that, ok, there is C.C. but it’s anything, anything but and the hundreds of billions of barrels of FF we’ve added to the atmosphere, (cause, we just love our cars, and will gladly sacrifice the future of the planet if we can have our fun now).
Also, all their declamations and shenanigans against clean energy (meaning, primarily, solar)? Even though it’s getting better all the time.
I know Skeptical Science has a long list of “reasons”, but I wonder if there is a combined list of quotations?
Hmm, one of these two quotations, or part of it, from former astronauts would make a good sub under the banner on Real Climate:
“On the one hand, we can see how indescribably beautiful the planet that we have been is, but on the other hand, we can really, clearly see how fragile it is…. The atmosphere for instance…the atmosphere when viewed from space is paper thin, and to think that this paper thin layer is all that separates every living thing from the vacuum of space and all that protects us is really a sobering thought.” ~ Ron Garan, Astronaut
“For the first time in my life I saw the horizon as a curved line. It was accentuated by a thin seam of dark blue light—our atmosphere. Obviously this was not the ocean of air I had been told it was so many times in my life. I was terrified by its fragile appearance.” ~ Ulf Merbold, Astronaut
I’d like to take time-out from all the bickering over sea level, hiatus, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. to express my growing alarm over all the increasingly paranoid chatter I see just about everywhere concerning the supposedly “existential threat” posed by “climate change.” It’s getting seriously out of hand, folks. Everywhere we are being reminded that, according to “the experts” the Earth will soon be subject to out of control warming trends so extreme as to threaten life as we know it, eventually bringing about the extinction of human life altogether. Over and over, year after year, we are hearing the same mantra: according to “the science” we are headed for certain disaster unless we act NOW to radically reduce the burning of fossil fuels. That “now” came and went years ago, but that doesn’t matter any more to the true believers of today than it has so many times to doomsayers of the past, all too willing to post-date when their dire predictions failed.
I’ve been at pains on this forum and elsewhere to question certain basic tenets of this so-called “science,” but my efforts have (predictably enough) been in vain. What stands out especially is the serious discrepancies between the evidence and what is being claimed. In just about every case, when one consults the raw, unprocessed, data it appears to be at odds with what the mainstream science has claimed. Only a highly trained “real” scientist, apparently, has the ability to spin such unpromising straw into climate change gold. One notorious case in point is the notion, based on a highly misleading scattergram, that CO2 emissions are correlated with global temperatures. For my analysis of that claim, see http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
We are not talking, unfortunately, about some arcane academic dispute, but an issue fraught with the greatest consequences for the future of all humanity. Indeed, a growing movement, sparked by a veritable children’s crusade, is calling for mass “nonviolent” resistance on a worldwide scale, a movement grounded in sheer panic that could easily morph into a serious attempt at revolution that might well turn extremely violent. Indeed nothing less than a worldwide revolution of the most radical kind would be capable of turning off the spigot to the extent now being demanded.
The insanity of such a movement becomes clear when one considers the consequences: a shutdown of the transportation network that provides the world with its food, clothing, and other essential commodities; a shutdown of the oil and gas resources that provide billions of people with fuel, electricity, lighting, heating, cooling etc.
Think for a moment of what would happen if, by some miracle, it might be possible to reach “net zero” at some not too distant time without incurring the dire consequences listed above. What then? We sit down and wait for 30, 40, 50, years, 100 years, for business as usual to resume – for hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. to abate, for Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves to re-form, sea levels go down, and all once again be well with the world, as it was before all those greedy oil barons took over???? Has anyone ever conceived such a truly insane Utopian fantasy?
Geoff Miellsays
Victor: – “I’ve been at pains on this forum and elsewhere to question certain basic tenets of this so-called “science,” but my efforts have (predictably enough) been in vain.”
US petroleum geologist Art Berman tweeted on 10 Apr 2023:
I don’t think that there’s much wrong with science, just all the people who listen to idiots who desperately want the science to be wrong so that they can continue to act like they’re still in the junior high locker room with the planet.
As much as I’d like the science to be wrong on the climate crisis, overwhelming & compelling evidence/data I see indicates otherwise – see my earlier comments to you.
Victor: – “Think for a moment of what would happen if, by some miracle, it might be possible to reach “net zero” at some not too distant time without incurring the dire consequences listed above.”
‘Net-zero’ is not enough. Climate change has arrived and it will get worse, and how much worse depends on what we/humanity do this decade especially, this year and today.
V: The insanity of such a movement becomes clear when one considers the consequences: a shutdown of the transportation network that provides the world with its food, clothing, and other essential commodities; a shutdown of the oil and gas resources that provide billions of people with fuel, electricity, lighting, heating, cooling etc.
BPL: Except that no one is calling for an overnight shutdown of any of those things, only that their energy sources be switched over to renewables. So stop spreading lies.
nigeljsays
Victor.
“Another is the claim that the warming hiatus beginning in the 1940s was due to aerosol cooling – for my debunking of that one,”
You haven’t debunked the claim. You were shown copious evidence that aerosols caused a cooling effect mid last century. Most people would have accepted this and moved on. Don/t be a flat earther Victor. You’re smarter than that.
“What then? We sit down and wait for 30, 40, 50, years, 100 years, for business as usual to resume – for hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. to abate, for Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves to re-form, sea levels go down, and all once again be well with the world, as it was before all those greedy oil barons took over???? Has anyone ever conceived such a truly insane Utopian fantasy?”
The science doesnt say those things. Your comments are a strawman. The science says if we stop emitting CO2 warming will stop after a short delay and sea level rise will not be nearly as much as precited (1 – 2 metres by end of this century).
Some sea level rise is locked in for millenia. In fact the planet is in a constant state of flux regarding sea level rise with only relatively short periods of stability and this is the normal pattern and we have to live with that. So we are not seeking some sort of utopian climate that is completely stable (if thats what you mean).
The PROBLEM is the rapid acceleration of sea level rise caused by anthropogenic emissions with massive levels of sea level rise possible within our lifetimes or children’s lifetimes. I have a design degree so Im aware of the problems this can cause.
In fact personally I see climate mitigation more as a problem solving exercise rather than seeking a utopia, although a small number of people on the fringes do tend to highjack the issue to create some sort of social utopia. But this doesn’t define the climate mitigation issue. And they are not entirely wrong either. A newly developed energy system has to be inclusive and not push costs unfairly onto low income people.
And what do we do when the world runs out of fossil fuels, or they become very expensive to extract? We will have to transition to another energy source whether solar, wind, nuclear or whatever. And the transition will be disruptive and painful, but ultimately its unavoidable.
In the 19th century the world burned timber for energy until it ran out, and so it had to transition to burning coal. There was no choice unless you want stagnation. The industrial revolution destroyed a whole lot of occupations but that is the price of progress.
Energy transitions can be managed to minimise pain. Ignoring the climate problem will certainly create pain, and costs that will fall on poor people and poor countries the most. Remember that since you say you support progressive politics.
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor, the problem is that the only supports your position has are your stubborn refusal to understand even the most rudimentary statistics and your embrace of the fallacy of argument from consequences.
Reality doesn’t care what you or I or anyone else thinks. It is like the story of one of Von Neumann’s students who complained that he was having trouble understanding a mathematical argument. Von Neumann replied, “Young man. You don’t understand mathematics. You get used to it.”
Chuck Hughessays
Weaktor says: “I’ve been at pains on this forum and elsewhere to question certain basic tenets of this so-called “science,” but my efforts have (predictably enough) been in vain.”
In that case, I think you should leave this site for good. Obviously, you’re not getting anywhere here and your comments aren’t appreciated by the scientific community, so you should start your own blog and invite everyone to visit you. We’d be more than happy to come drop in and offer our assistance. Who knows? You may gain a devout following and be able to turn it into a business.
John Pollacksays
I’ll begin with what seems to be your central concern.
V. We are not talking, unfortunately, about some arcane academic dispute, but an issue fraught with the greatest consequences for the future of all humanity.
J: Agreed, except that I would include the rest of the life on this Earth.
V: Indeed, a growing movement, sparked by a veritable children’s crusade, is calling for mass “nonviolent” resistance on a worldwide scale, a movement grounded in sheer panic that could easily morph into a serious attempt at revolution that might well turn extremely violent.
J: How differently we see the world! Panic ensues when people emerge from a complacent state to perceive that their survival is threatened. Yes, they can get violent. Better to recognize the threat early and avert it. The threat is climate change strong and abrupt enough to disrupt our infrastructure and the very nature we depend on for our ultimate survival. I would not expect climate change to cause human extinction by itself, but it would contribute to existing human conflicts, and thus make life a lot more difficult and painful. When we consider the consequences of a COVID epidemic with a fatality rate well under 1%, I don’t want to see what would happen if we ended up with 10%, 50%, or 90% population reduction in a short time. Those are still well short of human extinction.
Now, back to science, but not in a lot of detail.
V: What stands out especially is the serious discrepancies between the evidence and what is being claimed.
J: Your idea of “evidence” bears only a superficial resemblance to actual science, insofar as it provides you with some points to argue about without advancing understanding. Science advances our understanding about the natural world through a constructive process of developing ideas and obtaining evidence that may challenge or deepen those ideas. It also includes safeguards intended to keep us from fooling ourselves.
V: One notorious case in point is the notion, based on a highly misleading scattergram, that CO2 emissions are correlated with global temperatures.
J: A great example of what I’m referring to. This was discussed in depth back in Dec. 2021 on this forum. You haven’t responded to any of the substantive critiques. Some of these are
a) grossly incorrect use of “correlation” to suit your own personal definition, at odds even with your own
chosen data set,
b) failure to appreciate that correlation can only apply to linear relationships, while the climate system is non-linear in a way that varies with the time scale,
c) ignoring other very important sources of information, such as the relationship between GHGs and climate over geologic timescales, or oceanic heat content, (even if you don’t believe modeling or radiation physics in general)
d) a failure to provide any reason for global temperatures to remain elevated and keep rising over the decades, if one excludes GHGs from the explanation.
V: “Think for a moment of what would happen if, by some miracle, it might be possible to reach “net zero” at some not too distant time…” “We sit down and wait for 30, 40, 50, years, 100 years, for business as usual to resume…?”
J: No, we have already introduced such a massive blast of CO2 into the system that you can tack on a couple of zeroes onto your time estimates before we get back to “business as usual.” I base that in part on the solid geological evidence that during the last interglacial (when solar radiation at the poles was higher than now, and CO2 was relatively elevated but a lot lower than now) sea levels of at least 2m higher than present, and at times 9m, for well over 5,000 years. That’s the time it takes continental ice sheets to adjust to GHGs. We’re pushing the climate system a lot harder than happened the last go-around 120,000 years ago, with 500 ppm CO2 likely before we can stop ourselves. That puts us up to levels not seen in millions of years. From a human perspective, it’s a permanent change. And it’s so big that massive disruption is guaranteed. Just how massive is still somewhat in our hands.
Mr. Know It Allsays
Is the record 70 feet of snow at Snowbird Ski Resort in Utah a result of increased moisture in the atmosphere due to global warming? Will increased CO2 and moisture in the atmosphere result in increased plant growth absorbing the CO2 added by humans, and acting as a self-correcting system?
We’re removing more vegetation than can grow back, especially trees. Clearing land and chopping down the Amazon Rainforest cuts off the water cycle, so you’re going to get massive flooding or prolonged drought and excessive heat, which damage soil and plants. All your topsoil erodes off into rivers and streams, and then the microbes come out.
CO2 helps plant growth, but excessive heat and flooding cancel out any benefits to that. The only thing that will thrive will be invasive plants and stuff nobody is going to want to ingest. Crows should do pretty well feeding off of dead humans and animals. Rats and cockroaches will get the leftovers, and microbes will be able to reproduce at exponential rates. How does that sound?
KIA: Will increased CO2 and moisture in the atmosphere result in increased plant growth absorbing the CO2 added by humans, and acting as a self-correcting system?
Hr. Knowitall
You say it, and I shall not mention anything about blind chicken this time.
Snow in Utah follow from warm water somewhere else, and the warmer the water ….
But then once again.. where does it rain? .. in the plain” in SpaIn ?
That is decided on by the http://www.Jørungandr the large worlds serpent that lies around the whole world and bites itself in the tail by weak forces that can slip and brake, who is quite unpredictabe even to science then, allthough they have him suspected all the time. In cleartext it depends on how the winds are blowing, that may change from year to year. Sudden and unexpected things may thus happen.
That CO2- with H2O and warmth- system,.. yes, it is a typical natural self correcting system, a typical system with negative feedbacks thus rather stable reliable from natures side. But then very disturbed by human activities in recent time.
I give you a Haud illaudabilis for this, Mr Knowitall.
b fagansays
Mr. Kia, you ask if the increase in CO2 will lead to feedbacks that will stop the increase in CO2.
You ask that while atmospheric CO2 has been increasing every year of the Keeling measurements – and that is with plants absorbing what they can, and the ocean absorbing what it can. So it seems plants won’t spontaneously save us from the effects of our actions.
But it reminds me of Lindzen’s failed Iris hypothesis, where warming in the tropics from our CO2 would reduce high-level clouds and thus speed enough IR to space to save us from the effects of our actions. Back when he suggested that, I wondered how that could be the case, since there was already evidence of much higher greenhouse warmings in past elevated CO2 events – with temperatures that showed no sign of an iris effect saving the day.
Last month I came across the MDPI-published paper Dengler, Joachim, and John Reid. 2023. “Emissions and CO2 Concentration—An Evidence Based Approach” Atmosphere 14, no. 3: 566 on Judith Curry’s blog. I decided to do some analysis of some parts of the paper to see if it made any sense. It turns out that the incompetence in this paper runs deep. They have a figure they use to support the notion that “relative CO2 absorption (%)” has increased linearly at by 2.5% with CO2 concentration. But It’s completely bogus:
1. The units of the y-axis should be ppm, not percent. It’s the slope of the graph that would have units of ppm/ppm and thus could be described as a percent.
2. The paper calculated a term Ni, which they defined as “the global natural net emissions during year i.” However, after examining their calculations and comparing them to the 2021 carbon budget, what they called Ni was actually the budget imbalance – that is, the difference between the estimated sources and sinks. What they’re calling “relative CO2 absorption” is actually total sinks minus the budget imbalance.
3. The 2021 carbon budget contains annual values. During the early years, CO2 spent multiple years at the same CO2 ppm. During the more recent years, CO2 increased by multiple ppm every year. This paper just plotted annual values with atmospheric CO2 on the x-axis. If you look at the graph, you can see that they did this by the clumping of data close together at low ppm while at higher ppm, the data points are farther apart. This introduces bias into the slope of the graph, making the earlier values too low and the later values too high. The authors should have added values from multiple years at the same ppm and adjusted the later values for the fact that they count for multiple CO2 concentrations.
4. The authors performed smoothing on their data before plotting the graph, inflating their r^2 value.
I don’t know if it’s worth trying to get the paper retracted.
Ray Ladburysays
Scott, most crappy papers are not retracted. Rather they prove to be of no use to the scientific community, and so they sit there like a dog turd on a New York sidewalk on a hot summer’s day. Now, every once in a while, an unwary, naive pedestrian may step in said paper and raise a stink, but if scientists spent all their efforts correcting the morons, they wouldn’t get anything done.
Unfortunately, however, there is a more pernicious effort–the paper that is utter bullshit while seeming to answer all questions and tell the frightened layman what he wants to hear–that the threat isn’t real. Bullshit, unfortunately, lives forever, because it makes no falsifiable prediction and only tells reassuring Just-So stories.
Scott J Simmons,
The grand work of Dengler & Reid was indeed given the once-over and a big thumbs down here at RealClimate in last month’s UV thread. It is pretty obviously a pile of nonsense. That Judy Curry doesn’t see what’s wrong with it shows how utterly useless her comments have become. That it has now been apparently peer reviewed (presumably by the peer group of numpties and climate change deniers inhabited by Dengler & Reid) and now published by Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute only adds to a substantial catalog of controversy that has been stacked up against that publisher.
Ray Ladburysays
We really need to start naming and shaming the journals that publish this crap. The way you train a puppy not to crap in the house is by rubbing their nose in it.
IMO, #3 is not credibly interpreted as incompetence, but rather malice. Put plainly, I think that they were cooking the graph.
Chuck Hughessays
On this episode, we meet with author and paleobiologist Peter Ward.
Ward helps us catalogue the various risks facing Earth’s oceans, how the Atlantic Ocean’s currents are slowing due to warming, what happened in Earth’s history when ocean currents stopped, and why a reduction in elephant poaching is contributing to the destruction of coral reefs.
Sigh. Victor is just so certain of himself and his ability to judge the science. But unfortunately he is just a deluded old fool. For years he has made claims that the experts are mistaken even though he has repeatedly shown on this site that has failed to understand even the most basic science. I guess in a way this shouldn’t be a surprise because he has no formal training in the physical sciences (nor statistics); however, one would think that one of his supposed keen intellect would have made an honest attempt to understand it, at least the basics. But no he hasn’t. In all these years on this site he hasn’t shown a capacity of learning a damned thing while he professes to be the smartest person in the room. It’s sad.
A simple example of Victor’s ignorance from not too long ago in his never ending discussion on correlation was this: Nice try, CC. Since atmospheric CO2 can only heat the ocean by heating the atmosphere first (duh!), then the lack of any long-term correlation between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperatures precludes any long-term correlation between CO2 levels and the heat content of the ocean. Note that Victor even uses a “(duh!)” in his response to show his disdain and his deluded sense of superior knowledge and intellect…yet of course his statement was completely and unequivocally wrong.
Surprisingly, once the foolishness of his statement was pointed out he did admit to his error, he is magnanimous after all, right? However, did he then learn from this? Did he acknowledge the importance of the oh so obvious correlation of rising sea temperatures to rising CO2 levels? No, of course not. And did he then admit that since CO2 actually raises surfaces temperatures on land and sea which then in turn warms the atmosphere as an indirect effect that this correlation is even more meaningful? No, of course not. Apparently he is way too emotionally invested in his “there is only a small period of time where there is a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures” meme.
Furthermore, as pointed out by nigelj, he also apparently has no understanding of el Nino and the simple fact that an el Nino event has zero influence on temperatures in subsequent years. As such, he feels, incorrectly of course, that these years can be ignored. His whole correlation discussion is silly and no matter how many times he has been told the flaws in his thinking, by experts no less, he continues to double down and spout his foolishness. For years. For Victor, sadly, there is no real discussion or desire to actually learn something about the science unless it supports his delusion.
Rinse lather repeat. It never ends.
Victorsays
A while ago I provided a link to an interesting youtube lecture by a Dr. Yong, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from Monash University — https://youtu.be/P5HyDp_Jgd8
Since I’m not a physicist I requested help from anyone posting here with a sufficient background in physics to evaluate his claims. To this date no one has responded. So I’ll give it another try.
Some excerpts from the accompanying transcript:
28. In passing, Dr Harde’s rigorous line-by-line calculations show the surface temperature only increases less than 0.3 to 0.6 K due to CO2 doubling, that is over 5 times smaller the IPCC’s official value 3.2 K. That’s why his new results are ignored by the main stream climate researchers.
30. So, you can see climate modeling is an intelligible number game, because they know how much temperature change they want for the global warming, but just dress “the temperature change” up with a new cloth called “radiative forcing.”
36. Look at this state-of-the-art diagram of the so-called Global Power Budget, the downward longwave radiation at the surface is as high as 342, which is slightly stronger than the shortwave radiation from the sun at the top of the atmosphere! This is insane.
38. To summarize briefly, radiative forcing has been introduced in attempt to quantify the imagined Greenhouse Effect for climate modeling, but the related theory belongs to a psychological thriller that can hardly be justified by basic laws in thermodynamics.
Since the transcript is incomplete, it’s necessary to view the entire lecture to follow his very detailed argument.
CCHolleysays
I can see just enough to know it is obviously baloney and a waste of time. That’s likely why no one has responded.
Dr Harde’s rigorous line-by-line calculations show the surface temperature only increases less than 0.3 to 0.6 K due to CO2 doubling, that is over 5 times smaller the IPCC’s official value 3.2 K. That’s why his new results are ignored by the main stream climate researchers.
LOL, Dr. Harde is well known at Real Climate. He is a fraud and that is why his results are ignored by mainstream climate researchers.
So, you can see climate modeling is an intelligible number game, because they know how much temperature change they want for the global warming, but just dress “the temperature change” up with a new cloth called “radiative forcing.”
This is utter BS. They know how much temperature change they want . . . Really? No “they” don’t. And, radiative forcing is well defined and not made up. Radiative forcings determine how the energy comes into the earth system and back out again.
Look at this state-of-the-art diagram of the so-called Global Power Budget, the downward longwave radiation at the surface is as high as 342, which is slightly stronger than the shortwave radiation from the sun at the top of the atmosphere! This is insane.
It’s actually a measurable quantity. So no, it is not insane. Why doesn’t he know this?
Interesting that the Youtube site of Yong Tuition doesn’t share much, if any, information and background on Dr. Yong nor a full name to help one check up elsewhere on his background. In fact, a fairly thorough search of the internet could not find a single item on a Dr. Yong with a Phd in physics from Monash University in Australia. There is no sign of any publications, no curricula vitae, no list of qualifications. Nothing. Nada. Even checked Linkedin Australia and no such person is on Linkedin there, which seems a bit odd. So, no such person seems to exist other than on Yong Tuition. Wonder why that is?
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Dear Victor,
to my best understanding, under “radiative forcing”, it is understood the slow rise in the mean low of the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR). This rise is assigned to the rising concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases.
I do not know yet how precisely the rise in the DLR is tracked experimentally. I am aware that the values of energy flows given in various modifications of the Trenberth’s diagram are averages over one year and over entire Earth surface, and it can be quite challenging to make such averaging experimentally.
I think, however, that the theoretical concept is relatively clear. Due to the existence of the DLR (that sums with the shortwave sunlight absorbed by Earth surface), the upwelling longwave radiation (ULR) may be indeed well above the value of the sunlight energy flow.
I asked the same questions as you and finally found a comprehensive and understandable explanation in the textbook Physical Climatology (2nd edition, 2016) written by prof. Dennis Hartmann.
You can find a very short excerpt from this book in my public orgpage https://orgpad.com/s/VhvfDd5uRIP
that focuses on a related question in what extent the non-radiative heat flow (by convection and latent heat transport) changes the temperature difference between Earth surface and top of the atmopsphere (TOA).
Greetings
Tom
Tomáš Kaliszsays
Correction:
Please read “in the mean FLOW of the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR)”.
I apologize for this unpleasant typing error.
Victor the Troll,
An amusing little video you bring us to watch.
So we see an idiot that translates Radiative Forcing = “the difference between the TOA longwave flux with and without the greenhouse absorber” into Radiative Forcing = “the difference between the terrestrial radiation intensity, presumably detected near the surface, and the outgoing radiation intensity detected at the TOA.” To paraphrase the words of this lunatic Yong later in his video, “This translation is insane.”
The idiot rambles on with further “insane” suggestions, for instance, that the ‘present participle’ “Forcing” is deliberately used in climatology to grab society’s attention and inflame passions. (At this point I’m wondering if this Yong character is actually a comedian.) Yet the idiot rather too-often refers to his associate Hermann Harde who’s own stupidity has been the subject of posts here at RC (eg here). According to the idiot Yong, Harde is ignored because his results are too radical, not because they are simply wrong.
I’m not sure why the idiot picks on Gregory et al (2004) ‘A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity’ which describes a method for calculating ECS in GCM and does not redefine the RF concept.
The idiot’s puzzlement at the RF definition perhaps stems from his inability to read and understand Ramaswamy et al (2018) although he does manage to display the title of this paper in his little video (& I still do harbour the idea that this video is not just bad comedy).
The idiot’s final flourish (& what he apparently is describing as “insane”) is the way that back radiation at the surface is shown as being greater than the solar flux at the TOA, as this graphic he uses shows. Earlier in his video the idiot states “Tell me if I am wrong” when suggesting an electrical amplifier needs to have a power input to power its output. This is of course correct but the analogy with climate is bonkers. The output from our planet is all at the TOA not at the planet surface where the back radiation can be entirely decoupled from the TOA energy balance, “balance” being the operative word, a “balance” upset by RFs.
So Yong, you are entirely wrong.
Well done you!!!
jgnfldsays
First you should probably read the relevant sections of an actual textbook, don’t you think?
The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is high level. The technical summary is more detailed without getting too ridiculous. You’d be looking for TS.3 Understanding the Climate System Response and Implications for Limiting Global Warming (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/technical-summary/). I’m sure you’ll never read the full report, it not being a youtube screed, but even more detailed is there and pointed to from the Technical Summary.
Of course that takes significantly more skull sweat than watching youtube screeds and thinking drivel is science. (BTW: Care to tell us about his publishing history in climate journals?)
As the accompanying photo makes clear, this is the same person who’s identified himself online as “Yong Tuition”. According to this website he has several published papers to his credit.
Which does NOT necessarily make him a bona fide authority on climate and climate change. I requested assistance in evaluating his claims by any posting here who have the qualifications I lack, and want to thank those who have posted above. Based on your responses, I must agree that there do seem to be serious problems with Dr. Yong’s presentations.
CCHolleysays
ResearchGate provides a list of papers for which he authored or was a co-author, but nothing else about his background although it shows alleged expertise in “resonance absorption and emission” along with “absorption spectroscopy”. A further internet search for a Y. C. Zhong again turns up absolutely nothing. ResearchGate does show an apparent association with an Erichen Consulting, but a search for that organization again turns up nothing.
When viewing science information from YouTube or when generally reading anything on the internet for the science it is always wise to check for independent information on the author to help one make a judgement of how much credence to give to what is stated. When no background information is found it obviously doesn’t mean there is a total lack of expertise, but it should cause one to be wary and skeptical, especially if the author expresses nonconventional thinking. Even if you find the author has expertise and perhaps is somewhat well respected, searching for other information to either support or debunk what the author claims is also a wise move. This should be common sense.
JCHsays
“36. Look at this state-of-the-art diagram of the so-called Global Power Budget, the downward longwave radiation at the surface is as high as 342, which is slightly stronger than the shortwave radiation from the sun at the top of the atmosphere! This is insane. …” – Yong Zhong, PhD
He clearly has little to no understanding of it. The 340 is incoming solar radiation. Short wave. Of the 340, which is an insane 2 less than 342 (his claim,) 75 is reflected by the atmosphere and 25 is reflected by the surface. In the earth’s system, it warms nothing.
So now the 342 is 102 bigger than 240. Shazam, 2 has grown to 102: total physical insanity. Of course, no scientific instrument can find the source of the 342. For that we would apparently need a Physichiatrist.
GISTEMP has posted the LOTI anomaly for March, at +1.21ºC a big jump up on Jan (+0.87ºC) & Feb (+0.98ºC).
March 2023 is the 2nd warmest March on record, below March 2016 (+1.36ºC) and above 2019, 2020 & 2019 (all +1.17ºC), 2022 (+1.05ºC), 2015 (+0.96ºC) & 2010 (+0.92ºC).
March 2023 has the 4th highest anomaly in the all-month record.
2023 also sits in 4th place in the warmest start-of-the-year rankings.
The https://Climate.Gov charts with climate data products are useful, yet there are constrained to a single website since the images are not dynamically updated (thumbnails do not share the same naming). https://www.climate.gov/climatedashboard
I wrote them about this last year. Also searching the WordPress Plugin database from your site backend does not yield similar content. Perhaps someone here has an idea on how to display the latest climate data charts on a website through computation alone?
A cautious, preliminary prediction of low ASI over 2023~2025. In August 2015 I put forth a theory El Nino modes of ENSO affected ASI minimums. The mechanisms seemed rather straightforward to me, though it was said there is no statistical correlation between ENs and ASI minimums. I theorized warm water associated with ENs, and warm air, must affect the sea ice since global atmospheric temps and oceanic temps rise during an EN and the flow of water through the Arctic is from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Of course, any effects from atmospheric temps would be out of phase with oceanic temps; it takes far more time for ocean currents to move energy than it does for air currents. Also, the heat content of the air is a small fraction of the potential heat content of water.
All of this is well-understood by any readers of this site, I am sure. What is less known is the mechanism I described in Aug. 2015 of Pacific oceanic energy affecting ASI was confirmed in research conducted by Scripps. Their “Heat Bomb” paper aligns perfectly with the EN/ASI theory.
My analysis in 2015 found a completely neutral correlation between ASI minimums and La Nina, but around a 65% correlation with El Ninos, IIRC. Naturally, the effect should be more pronounced with large ENs, which are not so common, around every 20 years or so according to this article: https://www.livescience.com/ocean-surface-temperature-record, which is about the record SSTs currently occurring. Basically, 2016’s relative low was easy to predict given it was expected to be a large EN and ended up being the warmest ever. (See article linked above.)
To review, the theory is there is a lag between when ENs begin and peak and when they more directly affect ASI. I think researchers have missed this for the simple reason their window was too narrow. For an EN that forms in a given year, the expectation is there could be a significant ASI impact that year or the next two summers, with the following summer being the most likely.
As many here will know, predicting ASI Extent is notoriously difficult. Weather conditions dominate the overall outcome of any given year, along with such patterns as the Arctic Oscillation, wind direction (Pacific > Atlantic) and intensity driving export via Fram Strait, etc., while climate influences affect the overall trend.
Of course, ASI lows in the middle and latter half of this decade are a bit of a no-brainer as overall temperatures rise, the sun cycle peaks, ENs occur, etc., I won’t be alone in this – though how many will be able to claim they called specific years 17 months early? Well, maybe a lot. LOL. Here are my scenarios, subject to revision as the intensity of the EN clarifies and this years’ ASIE predictably falls relative to the past few years. (What goes up, must come down. Not much of a prediction, eh? More of an expectation 2023 will be below the average of the last three years.)
Scenario 1: 2023 EN intensity is moderate: We would expect lower ASIE than the previous 3 years, but likely not in the range between 2016 and 2012.
2024 would see a low below 2023, but how low would be difficult to predict, though high SSTs in general might be enough to push the extent toward 2016.
Scenario 1b: 2023 EN intensity is moderate: 2012-ish conditions, e.g. winds, export, high June insolation and a large cyclone would make 2016-ish levels very likely, I’d think.
Scenario 2 2023 EN intensity is strong: By itself, this should be enough to push 2023 toward 2016, but not as far as 2020.
2024 would see a low below 2016 and perhaps 2020, small chance of hitting @ 2012.
Scenario 2b: 2023 EN intensity is strong: 2012-ish conditions, e.g. winds, export, high June insolation and a large cyclone would make 2012-ish levels possible.
**For all scenarios above effects stated for 2024 could be delayed to 2025, though much more likely in 2024 in the case of a very strong or extreme EN.**
Scenario 3 2023 EN intensity is extreme: Kiss 80% of ASI goodbye in either 2024 or 2025.
Underlying all of the above is the fact that climate changes are becoming ever more rapid and thus ever less predictable. Buckle up.
“The flow of waqter through the arctic is fromm the e pacific to the atlantic”
No,, that is a misconsception for many., that confuses and blocks the understanding of more relevant natural effects and currents..
The polar high pressure turns clockvice, thus there is a steady round and round clockvice iceand sea current there and it explains the Grønland glacier in the arctic zonne with onland north atlantic easterly winds, and the obvious lack of huge heavy glaciers on the northeastern canadian islands even further nort than Grønland. And the Föhnwind warm and dry situation along western Grønland.
The Beering street is too narrow and shallow.. But the Fram street is wide open and deep. The arctic ocean is much more connected to and communicating with the atlantic, And the Panama ridge is tight.
The northpole is an ocean surrounded by land, and Antarktis is the opposite, a large landmass surrounded by open sea in the unbroken Antipassat belt.. . the southpole is far less influennced and warmd by oceanic winds and currents.
The Golfstream pushed and heated by the passat– wind returns and goes round and round clockvice in the fameous Sargasso- sea. But a branch of that current enters the antipassat, the westerlies, and over to the Eurasian continent through the english channel but mostly over the ridge north of Scotland with Shetland Færøyene and Island. And onto Norway and northward, the fameous Maelstrom at Lofoten and enters the Barents sea, where you see the ice limit is way north of Spitzbergen and even Franz Josefs land and Severnaya Zemlya in the season, in recent time.
The eastern ices are thawing much more than the western in our days. .
Then the water goes down because it gets colder and saltier. The water freeses out. The polar bassin is very deep, , and that water returns south again as the deepwater south current in the Framstreet east of Grønland. And crosses further under the Golfstream on its way south.
This is roughly the morphology of wind weathers sea and ices in the arctic and subarctic.
A consequense is that the fameous NAO (not to be confused with NATO) and the atlantic as such, may be more decisive to the climate than even the ENSO. Because it interferes with the arcctic sea ices.
Thus you can discuss coffee- prices in Brazil and Cocain from “south america”, and hurricanes and tornados and Las Vegas Caltex EXXON and the swamps of Washington.
And Moscovia, Ukraina.. Siberia, and China.
Physical geography first.
Victorsays
I can tell I’m hitting a nerve when the personal attacks start to multiply. What no one here seems to notice is that such attacks don’t bother me. I’m here because I always enjoy a good debate — and keep hoping to see intelligent/meaningful responses to the points I make. Unfortunately such responses are rare on these threads — what I get mostly are irate and often silly dismissals of the sort that waste everyone’s time. That’s OK too as such retorts can be amusing. I’ve often defended Donald Trump for the same reason. He may be an annoying blowhard — I tolerate him because he amuses me.
“You haven’t debunked the claim. You were shown copious evidence that aerosols caused a cooling effect mid last century. Most people would have accepted this and moved on. Don/t be a flat earther Victor. You’re smarter than that.” So what you’re saying is that aerosols caused a cooling effect even where there were NO aerosols to be found. That’s quite a trick!
“The science doesnt say those things. Your comments are a strawman. The science says if we stop emitting CO2 warming will stop after a short delay and sea level rise will not be nearly as much as predicted” Well first of all there is no such thing as “the science,” only a group of people with a certain amount of training who identify as scientists. Moreover, real scientists do not concern themselves with absolute truth, that’s the realm of philosophy. To point to “the science” as some sort of oracle is consistent with cult-think. As for the “short delay” you mention, sorry but I don’t know of any scientist who makes such a claim. Even if we were to cease all burning of fossil fuels tomorrow, the effects would not be noticeable if at all for decades if not centuries. Assuming there would be any effects at all.
“And what do we do when the world runs out of fossil fuels, or they become very expensive to extract? We will have to transition to another energy source. . .” On this point I agree. Our real problem, as I see it, is not “climate change” but the fact that all fossil fuels will eventually run out. The problem is not some perceived need to cease burning them, but what to do when they are no longer available. So contrary to what some here might think I strongly support the development of alternative energy sources, and the research needed to make them reliable.
“Energy transitions can be managed to minimise pain. Ignoring the climate problem will certainly create pain, and costs that will fall on poor people and poor countries the most.” As I see things, it’s all the futile attempts to “tackle” climate change by undermining the use of fossil fuels that will have a devastating affect on the poor, and indeed just about everyone, long before any effects of climate change might be expected to kick in.
“Weaktor, the problem is that the only supports your position has are your stubborn refusal to understand even the most rudimentary statistics and your embrace of the fallacy of argument from consequences.” I’ve worked closely with highly qualified statisticians on more than one project and no one ever questioned my understanding of what they were doing. From time to time I would find a flaw in their reasoning and in every case they agreed and proceeded to fix the problem. There’s more to science than math and more to understanding data than the application of raw statistics. If you don’t see the need to apply critical thinking to any statistical result then YOU are the one who doesn’t understand.
” I think you should leave this site for good. Obviously, you’re not getting anywhere here and your comments aren’t appreciated by the scientific community.” Sorry but I fail to see any “scientific community” on these comment threads, just a bunch of self-appointed “experts”. I’m not here to make friends but to challenge what I see as a dangerous tendency toward group-think.
“Sigh. Victor is just so certain of himself and his ability to judge the science. But unfortunately he is just a deluded old fool.” Lol! I’ll accept the “old fool” part. And I do in fact live on a hill. As for “deluded” — perhaps — one never knows for sure. As I see it, however, you’re the one who’s deluded. Dangerously so.
“For years he has made claims that the experts are mistaken even though he has repeatedly shown on this site that has failed to understand even the most basic science.” I’m not the only one who’s questioned the wisdom of these so-called “experts” as I’m sure you are aware. There’s a long list of us, including many distinguished physicists. I’m wondering how many posing here as authorities on “the science” have ever actually conducted serious scientific research or even published a peer reviewed paper. I’ve been involved in extensive research over many years and published several such papers.
Victor the Troll,
So to be clear, you admit you are just a trolling. (I ask as you are evidently a half-wit and may not realise this is what you are admitting.)
V: I’ve worked closely with highly qualified statisticians on more than one project and no one ever questioned my understanding of what they were doing.
BPL: I question it. You don’t understand simply concepts like “correlation” and “trend” even after having them explained to you over and over and over again. You’ve either got a mental block on the subject or you’re just flat-out stupid.
V: I’m wondering how many posing here as authorities on “the science” have ever actually conducted serious scientific research or even published a peer reviewed paper. I’ve been involved in extensive research over many years and published several such papers.
BPL: But none of yours were in climate science or planetary astronomy, so by definition they don’t count. Nobody cares how many papers you’ve published about music or anthropology. My list of peer reviewed papers is only six so far, but every one of them dealt with planetary astronomy and 5 out of 6 dealt with planetary surface temperatures. And people like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann and Ray Pierrehumbert have lists of peer-reviewed papers as long as your arm. Don’t try going up against them for climate science credentials.
CCHolleysays
What no one here seems to notice is that such attacks don’t bother me.
Actually, it is glaringly obvious. Victor pretty much is a failure when it comes to self reflection and realization. Victor is the victim. Isn’t this a sign of a narcissist?
I’m here because I always enjoy a good debate — and keep hoping to see intelligent/meaningful responses to the points I make.
What Victor actually hopes for are responses that agree with his misguided understanding of the science.
Apparently Victor has no clue as to what an intelligent/meaningful response to the points he makes is because such are certainly not in anyway lacking. Recent example among many of Victor ignoring meaningful responses: Victor has yet to acknowledge that ocean warming is highly correlated to rising CO2 levels and as this warming is a direct effect of those rising levels, that correlation is far more meaningful than the correlation of the indirect effect of rising surface air temperatures. Nor has he acknowledge that temperatures in subsequent years following an El Nino event are not warmer due to the El Nino. Again, Victor hasn’t learned a damned thing.
— what I get mostly are irate and often silly dismissals of the sort that waste everyone’s time.
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.
That’s OK too as such retorts can be amusing.
That Victor’s motivation on here is purely for his own amusement is quite clear—because his motive is clearly not about understanding the science better.
Discourse is never in the spirit of learning, rather it is to arrogantly proclaim superior knowledge in areas for which the evidence actually shows he has little or no knowledge or expertise. He’s looking for a good debate—NOT!
Clearly never makes any attempt to understand the science and what the evidence actually tells us—never completes legitimate research of areas for which claims are made prior to posting. Expects others to do the work for him then ignores it—regularly ignores evidence and facts provided to him that make his points invalid and without merit.
Seems to fail to understand or acknowledge basic physical laws—has no formal training in physics or any of the physical sciences. Zero understanding of how science works but claims otherwise.
Has no knowledge of the history of the science and how the case for AGW was built over many many years. Does not have any knowledge of how data is analyzed though claims otherwise. Fails to recognize uncertainty except when it supports his arguments.
Fails to understand complexity and how various factors interplay with one another. Looks at information in isolation rather than in the context of the whole.
Does not understand what constitutes correlations. Fails to understand that many correlations are non-linear. Has zero understanding of statistical analysis. Regularly has claimed lack of correlation when that correlation is statistically valid as per the experts.
Very questionable critical thinking skills. Is incapable of drawing logical conclusions based on ALL of the available information. However, he believes himself to be a critical thinker or even a good skeptical thinker, when, in reality, he is exceedingly gullible, credulous, and prone to blatant confirmation bias, in which he discards or diminishes the importance of any information that contradicts his preconceptions and gives undue weight to any datum that can possibly be twisted to reinforce his position.
A meaningful “debate” with Victor just isn’t possible.
I’m not the only one who’s questioned the wisdom of these so-called “experts” as I’m sure you are aware. There’s a long list of us, including many distinguished physicists.
ROTFLMAO
jgnfldsays
Yup. Your idiocies REALLY ARE pwning all those libbie scientists! You sure show them!
BTW…In a backwards sort of way you are providing a great service here which is probably why the mods keep you hanging around. You provide everyday, drive-by readers with great material to learn by in the many responses which correct your continual misinformation about simple, basic, completely well known points. Otherwise the discussions here might be over the heads of the nonscientists out there.
So congrats.
Geoff Miellsays
jgnfld: – “BTW…In a backwards sort of way you are providing a great service here which is probably why the mods keep you hanging around.”
That thought had occurred to me also. But how much longer do commenters here at this blog need to dedicate ongoing resources to “correct continual misinformation about simple, basic, completely well known points”?
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor, no, lackwit, you are not hitting a nerve–or any other target for that matter….well, unless your target is stupidity and then well done you.
You are exasperating because:
1) You don’t listen.
2) You refuse to recognize those who are more expert than you (just about anyone)
3) You refuse to acknowledge the validity of established statistical and data analysis.
4) You labor under the misapprehension that your opinion matters. It doesn’t
Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that those who study climate for a living understand the subject better than you do?
Dansays
Wow, What delusion.
A.” including many distinguished physicists.” Irrelevant and a deflection. The issue is climate/atmospheric scientists who study climate. The idea that you and others think they know more than literally every single professional atmospheric science organization in the world including the National Academy of Science is the absolute height of arrogance and scientific ignorance.
B. “Scientific research or even published a peer reviewed paper”. Again, textbook deflection. This subject is manmade climate change. And peer reviewed papers about climate change. Not peer reviewed papers on statistics or your favorite ice cream. Get it? It is the subject that matters.
C. You have utterly failed time and time again to understand the basics of the scientific method which you ought to have learned in grade school. Yet you flaunt that ignorance and are unable to admit to being wrong as a result of deep insecurity. Scientific Facts>>Your opinion. Every single day.
D. It is however delightful to see that everyone here who does understand how science is conducted has rented room in your head as you come back and repeat the same lies over and over. And deflect to a different topic every single time you are caught with a scientific lie. The fact is you can’t leave here because you are so desperate for attention, facts be damned. Busted! Or in the vernacular you apparently prefer like “under your skin”, you’ve been “pwned” again and again and again and are too simple to realize it :-)
nigeljsays
Victor
“So what you’re saying is that aerosols caused a cooling effect even where there were NO aerosols to be found. That’s quite a trick!”
Not saying that at all. Plenty of aerosols were “found”. Quite high levels of sulphate aerosols were common in many cities globally during the period 1945 – 1975 due to the adoption of coal fired electricity generation in the rapid post war economic expansion, and coal being used for home heating. People have previously posted research papers on measuring levels of sulphate aerosols during the period. I even remember my parents having an open fire and burning coal and wood, in New Zealand in the late 1960s.
With CO2 concentrations being less mid last century than in recent years sulphate aerosols were easily able to suppress the warming effect of CO2.
People here also explained how sulphate aerosols distribute widely on the air currents and winds. And provided research studies on this. Suggest google a diagram of the earths circulatory system.
I do recall you claiming sulphate aerosols were not found in cities in Europe and America (?) and posting a study however the data was gathered in the last ten years, not mid last century. You apparently didn’t see the fine print on how the study was done.
Taken together the high level of sulphate aerosols is a convincing explanation of why temperatures were flat mid last century, although other factors also contributed. The PDO was in a negative phase over the same period.
Since the 1970s, sulphate aerosol pollution decreased globally because scrubbers were generally been fitted to coal fired power stations, because of the acid rain problem. I followed this a little bit because I’ve always been interested in pollution. This happened over the 1970s and 1980s and has continued in most places.
Coal for home energy has generally gone out of fashion. Cities in developed countries generally have cleaner air now.
However levels of sulphate aerosols are still significant globally, just because of the volume of coal fired power built after the 198o’s and poor standards in some countries. Aerosol emissions are however located in industrial zones, rather than in cities. And levels of CO2 globally have become high enough to cancel the cooling effects of remaining aerosols.
This is all common knowledge and straightforward, and this is why I suggested your denial makes you sound like a flat earther. Especially as this information has been shown to you several times already.
Not meant to be an insult. We all get stubborn sometimes.
I recall the coal bin in the basement of my natal home in Sault Ste. Marie. It was disused by the time of my birth in 1955, and my father removed it to make a tiny library-cum-guest room; among other things it had a complete collection of the (Penguin-published) Hornblower novels in paperback. It would acquire a couple of decades-worth of National Geographics.
Chuck Hughessays
Weaktor Says: “I can tell I’m hitting a nerve when the personal attacks start to multiply. What no one here seems to notice is that such attacks don’t bother me.”
That is because you completely lack any form of self-awareness, and you have absolutely no idea how utterly and unapologetically stupid you really are.
Ray Ladburysays
I suppose nerve damage is common when one shoots oneself in the foot.
Here, you find it necessary to declare and betray a lot of personal things about yourself and your deeper basics, that you find warranted and holy absolutely in order.
Maybe science and “the people” and the majority of humanity, the science and the high priests, GURUs professors doctors and teachers, and all the responsible parents and grandparents, children, peasants and fishermen also the amateurs, the librarians and the musicians and the painters,…. the housemaids…. the voters…. are not so interested and not so upset about the same?
Maybe Matter, Maybe the Climate, maybe the earth, , maybe the solar system, maybe the landscape, maybe truth and reality….. is not “dia- lectic” ??????
Maybe SATAN the Devil, Dia- bolos should be shown back to his place and behind limits and ropes and bars in the taverns, in the shops and workshops, on the websites, and on the free market genosse Victor…..
……. and down to Hell, to Gehenna, where he belongs?
For the sake of Hygiene and Economy , for possible life and democracy, for possible breathing bathing and prophitable fishing and recreational skiing, Genosse Victor?
You must also understand that the way yu have plaid out your chards for a long time now, makes your claims of knowing enough about science and statistics and even have “published several such “Papers” (peer rewiewed) less credible.
It is unbelieveable.
For very simple reasons that you also ought to know and hardly can repair.
Such experience and praxis , paticipation and necessary long aqnd solid learnings for it, does make its impacts on your brains, your thoughts and mental habits, your soul and your syntax and vocabulary and on your basic archetyps and conscepts.
Education is meant to give you a “formation” and full development of your personality, and it will, if real and autentic. .
It marks your personality deeper than just a professional sociolect that you can buy cheaply in the shops, read quickly from a book or a brochure, a small political katechism, , or load down from the internet. Or absolve in a short course study of sales promption and personality strenghtening & performance.
I can tell you the same also in a most scaring way.
I have also learnt how to security clear people. That is often quite necessary in the free world , on the free market, and quite especially inside of the closed societies peoples republics , on the black markets and in the burglarshops. ” Can I rely on and make deals and business with that person?
The medical doctor for instance, a high experise and professionh with monopoly. Is he/ she autentic, or just a quack?
I check up the common- pensa educationalo premises for even be admitted to such a study and…. some details that I know they have to absolve consciously in person to get out from there again with a legal diploma.
I share their pensa of general physics chemistery and biology from highschool, and check up carefully “en passant” whether they are scared of that or hate that or tell that it is irrelvant and that I havent understood yet. Which betrays cheating and quackery in person.
Who, has not passed the grades, most often betrays it by large and snobbish holes in due common highschool educational Pensa.
Then I know they have to go through the human dissication hall, a quite closed room and study. I have not been there, but I have been shown and manduced (= led by hand) through the butchery of dead animal tissues, pigs birds fishes, and reindeers. So I simlpy smile and tell of myself in terms of general butchery. My sausseages, my heart and lungs, my neck nose and throat, my ears, my glands nerves and brains, my ribs my fore paws and my hind legs, and my skeleton bone for bone as we also butcher and eat it. On skin, I dicuss the properies and qualities of wild animal leather.
The good autentic medical doctor takes that with ease and will sustain it and tell back in the same categories because it is basics of their autentic facultary profession ever after Leonardo da Vinci.
But the quack and the whitchdoctor will get very adult and begin to teach me as an aspirant aside of due common highschool BACCALAVREVS 1 and even above the Faculty of Medicine in the grades..
Get out of that office. , That “Dr.” is dangerous and to be given to the ministery of health and told about on the free market.
You can examine Astronauts, Police officers, Lawyers and Judges Firemen , US Sherriffs, CIA – agents the same way.
I wrote it befrore, I am dangerous you see, I know how to ask and to examine people.
I had my SPAM- mailbox full of fabulous offers 15 years ago. Even I can now have my “Papers” and Diploma, from fameous universities and institutions worldwid. Just tell a bit about yourself and what you are good at, and what you expect to earn from that. We will state out the papers and diplomas. for you, for 1000-US$”
Thus the rumors came out shortly after:
“More and more Doctors, Professors, Dipl Engineers, Scientists…. from Worldwide today, .. are finding that the Hockeystick is broken. “
Barry E Finchsays
b fagan 14 APR 2023 AT 11:05 PM Yes and the following of mine from 2014. Tropical Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started having higher average speed at 1995 AD due to a warming tropical Atlantic Ocean surface. The Tropical Atlantic Ocean surface has warmed and has increased the intensity of the Tropical Pacific Ocean trade winds by 50% in under 30 years because the atmospheric circulation is coupled. The GMST trends have been:
+0.13 degrees / decade: UAH lower troposphere 1979-2017
+0.17 degrees / decade: RSS lower troposphere 1979-2017
+0.165 degrees / decade: Surface La Nina & ENSO-neutral years 1970-2014 (me from GISTEMP)
+0.20 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1966-1995 (me from GISTEMP)
+0.23 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1995-2014 (me from GISTEMP, high uncertainty, sparse & varied data points)
+0.18 degrees / decade: Surface average 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)
+0.11 degrees / decade: Ocean surface 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)
+0.047 degrees / decade: Ocean 0-300M depth 1966-2010 89 / 432 = 0.206 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.030 degrees / decade: Ocean 300-700M depth 1966-2010 76 / 576 = 0.132 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.026 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-1000M depth 1966-2010 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.15 degrees total increase: Ocean 0-1000M depth (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, Matthew England talk plots etc.)
—————-
+0.009 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-2000M depth 1966-2010 77 / 1872 = 0.0411 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
—————-
Quote: “Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. “We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean,” said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales.”
—————-
Quote: “The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”
—————-
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014
Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations
“Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.”
Interesting. Any thoughts out there about why the Atlantic has warmed so rapidly?
Victorsays
My oh my. Talk about stirring up a hornet’s nest. All the complaints have been aired again and again since I began posting here years ago, folks. The personal attacks are nothing new, but the attackers keep tirelessly repeating them, as though it could make a difference. I admit I was initially amused — now I’m just bored.
What you all fail to see is that none of it is about me, my “qualifications,” my “arrogance,” the notion that I’ve laid claim to some superior knowledge, etc. I’ve never made such a claim. Call me an idiot, a fool, call me delusional. Well that’s fine with me. Because nothing I’ve posted here is predicated on my knowledge or understanding of climate science, statistics or anything else So attacking my “pretentions” is neither here nor there. What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question. And contrary to the sort of claims regularly being claimed in these threads, the evidence stands regardless of what you might think of me. It’s not about me, but about the evidence. Take me out of the picture and you still have to deal with the evidence — evidence that clearly makes you uncomfortable.
“Victor has yet to acknowledge that ocean warming is highly correlated to rising CO2 levels and as this warming is a direct effect of those rising levels, that correlation is far more meaningful than the correlation of the indirect effect of rising surface air temperatures.” Sorry, but the evidence says otherwise. Forget about what “Victor” says and pay attention to the evidence for a change: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/19418.jpeg
As should be obvious, the picture for ocean temperatures is very similar to that for global temperatures generally. We see a rise from ca. 1910 – ca. 1940, followed by a sudden drop, followed by a period of about 25 years when we see no upward trend at all. And once again, we see that notorious “hiatus” from roughly 2000 to 2015. According to respected climatologist Spencer Weart, that initial period of warming cannot be attributed to CO2 emissions, as they were too low. All the while CO2 levels are steadily rising. We’ve been through this before but you are unwilling to accept it. That’s on YOU, not me.
“Nor has he acknowledge that temperatures in subsequent years following an El Nino event are not warmer due to the El Nino. Again, Victor hasn’t learned a damned thing.” I mentioned temperature spikes due to two extreme El Nino events, followed by a gradual decline, as indicated in the following graph: https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend
“regularly ignores evidence and facts provided to him that make his points invalid and without merit.” Examples?
“Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that those who study climate for a living understand the subject better than you do?” I’ve never claimed to understand the subject better than anyone else. As I’ve said many times, please forget about me and concentrate on the evidence. If you can’t explain, for example, why sea levels began rising during a period when global temperatures had been falling for some time, that’s your problem, not mine.
At last, a reasonable post — from nigelj. “Quite high levels of sulphate aerosols were common in many cities globally during the period 1945 – 1975 due to the adoption of coal fired electricity generation in the rapid post war economic expansion, and coal being used for home heating.” Nice try, Nigel. Sounds reasonable. However: I doubt there were many coal-fired plants or coal furnaces in the arctic back then: https://skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticTC1880-2010NCEP.png
As for Mr. Carbomonotonous — I’d take you seriously if you were capable of formulating a coherent sentence.
nigeljsays
Victor.
Regarding your links on temperature trends in the arctic, antarctic and africa.
Your contention (paraphrasing) has generally been that sulphate aerosols couldn,t be the cause of flat global temperatures mid last century, because certain locations like the arctic and antarctic and africa with no industry or electricity generating stations, and remote from aerosol sources still had flat temperatures mid last century. You alleged that being without aerosols they should have warmed mid last century.
Its been explained many times that sulphate aerosols and cooler air parcels carry a long way from their sources to remote locations and cause a cooling effect in such locations. They carry on winds and air currents as I mentioned above. It doesnt take high concentrations of aerosols to have a cooling effect when CO2 concentrations are low relative to presently. Several related research studies and maps of aerosols spread were posted for you some years ago, several times.
I remember your response was you don’t believe aerosols can have a cooling effect when carried such a long distance and dispersed, and you dont believe the studies. Im afraid your personal incredulity does not overturn the explanations, maps, and science studies. This is why you aren’t convincing me.
I’ve recently completed a pretty serious blog post dealing with climate change, with reference especially to the new NASA report on deep ocean (non) warming, which as I see it, could make a huge difference to the debate. And no, I’m not a “denier,” but a card carrying lifelong Democrat, liberal to the gills. I’d appreciate feedback from anyone reading here in the form of comments, positive or negative.
The link you provided to your “serious(sic) blog post” is now long dead but the responses to your comment show us you were of the view that the wobbles in a graph showing SLR post 1870 and another showing global temperature post-1880 were different enough to be incompatible with the science saying CO2 is driving AGW.
In the eight years since you haven’t presented anything more of any significance to support you conclusion although you have since added to your crazy mantra the idea, as set out in your comment above, that temperatures in a place in the world remote from sources of industrial aerosols cannot be impacted by those aerosol emissions.
Victor, it has never been “the evidence” that as you put it ‘makes us uncomfortable,’ We are fine with those wobbles, fine with the temperature of remote regions being impacted by the cooling created by aerosols half a world away. It is however your crazy mantra repeatedly presented here that we find distasteful. You are trolling. And until our hosts find the time to begin again dumping your nonsense in the Bore Hole (you even have the affront to tell us above that you are “bored”), your comments will continue to be subject to derision and complaint, “again and again.”
CCHolleysays
Recall Tamino’s expert take down of Victor way back in June of 2018.
The comments are particularly insightful.
Of course, nothings changed . . . Victor still hasn’t learned a damned thing.
V: What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question.
BPL: No, you really haven’t.
Chuck Hughessays
V: What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question.
BPL: No, you really haven’t.
Chuck: Victor is getting exactly what he wants here, which is a pointless discussion about Victor. You’d be better off debating Lauren Boebart over what kind of assault weapon Jesus carried on his donkey.
CCHolleysays
This is probably the saddest response made by Victor to date. The cluelessness expressed is beyond belief.
What you all fail to see is that none of it is about me, my “qualifications,” my “arrogance,” the notion that I’ve laid claim to some superior knowledge, etc. I’ve never made such a claim. Call me an idiot, a fool, call me delusional. Well that’s fine with me. Because nothing I’ve posted here is predicated on my knowledge or understanding of climate science, statistics or anything else.
Yup, arrogance and pure delusion for sure. It actually is all about Victor and it is Victor that fails to see it. Everything Victor has posted on here is predicated on his knowledge or understanding of climate science, statistics, or whatever. The total lack of which is for certain. EVERYTHING. And it is stunning that Victor totally fails to see this.
What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question. And contrary to the sort of claims regularly being claimed in these threads, the evidence stands regardless of what you might think of me. It’s not about me, but about the evidence.
This statement is so funny that it is sad. Science certainly is about the evidence—all the evidence, not just bits and pieces of evidence that one chooses. That Victor thinks he is providing evidence that appears to call the mainstream view into question is laughable. That’s where Victor’s total lack of critical thinking skills and lack of expertise comes into play. Evidence must be evaluated, its importance judged, and must be taken in context of the whole. Something Victor is totally incapable of doing.
For example. Victor provides us with the air surface temperatures record as “evidence” that there is no correlation of rising temperatures to CO2. Yes, the temperature record evidence “stands”, but what it is evidence for requires expertise which Victor does not have. Take Victor’s no correlation claim (except for one short period of time)—is this evidence? NO, it is a claim made by someone with zero expertise—while the experts show the correlation to be real. And consider the temperatures of the years after the 2015-16 el Nino event, what is this evidence for? Victor claims those years are only warm because of the el Nino which can be ignored when considering correlation which is blatantly false. This once again shows his total lack of expertise. Those years are clear evidence of underlying warming of the climate system and that warming is correlated to rising CO2 levels. YES, it is about the evidence—all the evidence taken in context.
“Victor has yet to acknowledge that ocean warming is highly correlated to rising CO2 levels and as this warming is a direct effect of those rising levels, that correlation is far more meaningful than the correlation of the indirect effect of rising surface air temperatures.” Sorry, but the evidence says otherwise. Forget about what “Victor” says and pay attention to the evidence for a change.
Once again, Victor’s lack of knowledge probably comes into play which he claims isn’t important. He provided a chart of ocean surface temperatures when the statement was made that CO2 levels are highly correlated to the increasing ocean warming which is a direct result of CO2 forcing We are NOT talking about surface temperatures which is an indirect effect. He is either being totally disingenuous or he is stupid.
“Nor has he acknowledge that temperatures in subsequent years following an El Nino event are not warmer due to the El Nino. Again, Victor hasn’t learned a damned thing.” I mentioned temperature spikes due to two extreme El Nino events, followed by a gradual decline, as indicated in the following graph.
Victor obfuscates and ignores the question because he does ignore those years when discussing correlation. And, BTW, the chart he provides includes a trend line starting in 1998 that clearly shows rising temperatures of almost 0.5 degrees for the entire period. This is actually evidence that contradicts Victor’s “there was no warming”, yet Victor continues to claim that the el Nino years and following years don’t count when looking for correlation. So who is ignoring evidence?
This is quite a good analysis of Victor, and useful, and to be studied by many, who wonder how really to judge him.
nigeljsays
Victor
CCH: “Nor has he acknowledge that temperatures in subsequent years following an El Nino event are not warmer due to the El Nino. Again, Victor hasn’t learned a damned thing.”
Victor: ” I mentioned temperature spikes due to two extreme El Nino events, followed by a gradual decline, as indicated in the following graph:”
Nigelj. Victor conveniently leaves out his full comments: “V: Interesting. The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015. Almost all your dates are post-2015, reflecting an abrupt temperature rise usually attributed to a powerful El Nino.” (April fifth above thread).
I pointed out previously that Victor had provided no citation to support his incorrect contention that temperature increases after 2015 through to 2022 were allegedly attributed to the 2015 el nino. I pointed out the science articles say warming attributed to the 2015 el nino affected only the years 2015 – 2016 with the el nino fizzling out in 2016. I don’t recall any of them saying the 2015 el nino was the driving force for temperatures after 2016 to 2022. The years after 2016 were stand alone years including a mixture of la nina years, neutral years and a weak el nino.
Take all the el nino years and la nina years out of the 100 year temperature record and you are left with a warming trend as below. The graph is interactive:
Victor claims there’s only a 20 year correlation between CO2 and warming, over the period 1978 – 1998 or something like that. He says ignore the warming period after 2105 because its all due to the 2015 el nino. As discussed he is wrong, but the cognitive dissonance means he ignores what people post and goes on deflecting, moving the goal posts and repeating his mantra .
People end up calling Victor names because he acts like someone who refuses to acknowledge that 1 + 1 = 2. It gets frustrating for the group.
“Victor…….acts like someone who refuses to acknowledge that 1+1=2. It gets frustrating..”
I might call it paracitism on our very fameous and reliable, politeness and tolerance vis a vis idiots, alians, and handicapped. .
Victor seems to perform quite consequently as recommended by Frank Lunz.
I try and see and crossexamine them for their background Katechism litterature and ideological sources of basic confirmation and secteric upbringing, as there is less signals and symptoms of due common higher learning of archetypical pensa. The “middle school” Baccalaureus 1 , normally from about 11 to 18 years is lacking by some in an often characteristic way.
That special syndrom I believe, the major lack of “higher formation” that is filled up with political and secteric substitutes for the same, may rather definitely have had social, religious, tribal and political causes.
I look at them and try and analyze it by that hypothesis.
Basic characters and the later fix ideas of life are formed at that age. So ask them and try and find out, where were they then? and in which class and society / party / Con- gregation/ country?
And have found this to be a most fruitful theory of psychoanalysis and technical archaeology. What are or were their possible GURUs and Idols and High Priests of possible ownership and mastership of art and of craft and salvation and wealth of nations?
Things like that will hardly change later in life because it takes major cathastrophies and diseases such as a new Puberty later in life for possible “conversion” and basic change of mind.
Which is feared because that is quite painful.
People are put to jail and even heavily medicated even tortured, in order to change their basic characters, minds, and opinions and fix ideas, their con- science and their shame. .
nigeljsays
Carbomontanus..
“I try and see and crossexamine them (people like Victor) for their background Katechism litterature and ideological sources of basic confirmation and secteric upbringing, as there is less signals and symptoms of due common higher learning of archetypical pensa. The “middle school” Baccalaureus 1 , normally from about 11 to 18 years is lacking by some in an often characteristic way….”
“That special syndrom I believe, the major lack of “higher formation” that is filled up with political and secteric substitutes for the same, may rather definitely have had social, religious, tribal and political causes.”
I agree in general terms. The surprising thing Is Victor told us some years ago he was a top student at secondary school in science and maths as well as the humanities. His grades were very high apparently. So his failure to grasp various scientific issues is perplexing.
It might be that his high grades have made him over confident. He shows signs he may lean towards a narcissistic personality which makes people egocentric, over confident and very stubborn and unwilling to admit error to themselves.
He has an anthropology degree so his knowledge of high level science is limited.
Victor says he leans towards left wing (liberal and progressive) politics. This is also surprising because such people are normally accepting of the anthropogenic climate theory more than right wingers and conservatives. (Pew polling research).
Its possible Victor is a left wing concern troll. He has said he is worried that climate change mitigation will hurt ordinary people, and perhaps this makes him try and find fault with the science. There is a small group of left wing academics like this (eg Michael Moore). Victor has rejected my suggestion.
Victor has said he’s just an intrepid investigator, using his allegedly superior critical thinking skills to find fault with the science. Well, if this is his real motive, his critical thinking skills seem very average to me and Victors evidence against the consensus that we are warming the planet is weak. There are simple and compelling explanations for the things that bother him.
Or maybe Victor just likes the attention and being annoying or he has a mental block over certain issues.
I just doubt there is one reason for his denialist views. Its probably a mish mash of different things.
Ok that is my armchair psychoanalysis completed..
jgnfldsays
Re. “What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question. ”
Factoids devoid of knowledgeable and complete context are not “evidence”. They are merely the ramblings of a fool/crank or else are the chief grist in a propagandist’s mill.
Gramps may well have lived to 102 while smoking every day for 90 years. “Revealing this evidence” to the medical world (note the inherent arrogance) as a “proof” that tobacco does not cause cancer is either completely stupid or else is actively dishonest.
jgnfldsays
Was fiddling with ChatGPT and gave it the following input from our favorite denier…
————-
JG: 28. In passing, Dr Harde’s rigorous line-by-line calculations show the surface temperature only increases less than 0.3 to 0.6 K due to CO2 doubling, that is over 5 times smaller the IPCC’s official value 3.2 K. That’s why his new results are ignored by the main stream climate researchers.
ChatGPT: While it is true that Dr. Harde’s calculations suggest a smaller increase in surface temperature due to CO2 doubling compared to the IPCC’s official value, it is important to note that his results are not widely accepted by the scientific community.
There are several reasons for this. Firstly, Dr. Harde’s approach has been criticized for relying on a simplified model of the Earth’s climate system that does not take into account important feedback mechanisms that can amplify the warming effect of greenhouse gases. Additionally, his calculations assume that the climate system is in a state of equilibrium, which may not be accurate given the rapid increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in recent decades.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that climate science is a highly interdisciplinary field that relies on a wide range of data sources, including observations, laboratory experiments, and numerical models. The IPCC’s assessment reports are based on an extensive review of the scientific literature and are subject to rigorous peer review.
While it is always valuable to consider different perspectives and approaches in scientific research, it is important to rely on the weight of evidence from the broader scientific community when assessing the state of knowledge on complex topics such as climate change.
—————-
Maybe we should ALL use ChatGPT to respond to him!!!
JCMsays
Hello
quoting chatGPT
“criticized for relying on a simplified model of the Earth’s climate system”
“climate science is a highly interdisciplinary field”
“it is always valuable to consider different perspectives and approaches”
I have no idea about the context of this discussion, but the following thoughts come to mind:
1) Is it necessary to conceptualize climates, and change, exclusively via a radiative greenhouse hypothesis?
2) Are we talking about “the climate”, or “real climates”?
3) What are the pros and cons of the reductionist method and exclusive focus on TCR, ECS, and ESS problem definitions offered by climatology today?
4) How do the reductionists intend to incorporate the far more complex and diverse traditional knowledge, which has been specifically called upon in IPCC assessment reports?
Perhaps there should be a distinction between astrophysical problem definitions and those of tangible human experience when defining climate regimes and environmental change. There is no reason these cannot be complementary.
My suspicion is that climatology is selling itself short. Such that the diverse and fascinating subject has been reduced to an insular culture; narrow, and constrained.
JCM: My suspicion is that climatology is selling itself short. Such that the diverse and fascinating subject has been reduced to an insular culture; narrow, and constrained.
BPL: Your suspicion doesn’t have any actual evidence to back it up. Stop concern trolling.
If I interpret JCM correctly, what he means by… “reduced to an island culture; narrow and restricted.” … the stubborn, medieval-looking brain structure of Presbyterian rams like you.
You can throw all kinds of evidence and papers into your sheepfold… Levenson the sheep eats them all up and then, very importantly, belches.
The burning down of your stupid sheep stable is a done deal… one way or the other.
“climatology is selling itself short. Such that the diverse and fascinating subject has been reduced to an insular culture, narrow, and constrained…”
roots in your own self and its deprived situation under special systematic racial state religious puristic administration instruction upbringigs and command.
Such as your flat earth religious political archetyp where “weeds” in the schoolyard and Kindergarten were fought with 3% NaClO3- spray and you were all forbidden to touch it because it was “pfui” and poisoneos giving you allergies.
Flowers were to be bought from the labour union politically controlled shops. Cherryblossom were to be pink and Japanese and come in February, and any cherrypicking in the wild was strictly forbidden because “poisoneous” Your “aunts” in Kindergarten were to instruct you that Prunus avies L was Atropa Belladonna, not to be touched by children. Children were to eat coloured sugar candies “drops” from the experts in the industries..
Blueberries craneberries strawberries only from the shops, politically controlled.
And your substitutes for nature, reality and science , was comic strips, LEGO and mass- produced uniformed proteses with interchangeable parts from the experts in anonymeous plural.
That “diverse and fascinating subject” has been reduced to an insular culture, narrow and constrained” drying up like a Lake Mead and Aral Sea as its producer the hollywood version of Dia lectic materialism dried up and is broke like a Soviet Union and its Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät in the provinces.
Not even Pope Francis with his Laudato Si and the Paris school with its MKSA system and its IPCC can serve you as long as you are addicted to the central stimulant of that thinktank of yours, that is sheere coke from Ayn Rand by the re- cycling destilleries of sheere materialism and communism through stainless steel closed thinktanks inside of the fameous Chateau Heartland in Michigan.
Quit your tribal provincial class warfare against zero celsius,
Behave and rather obey at the HERBARIVMs and scientific greenhouses of Carl von Linne, upstairs at the University of Uppsala, who also founded Kungliga Akademin and head- hunted Darwin at the Linnaean society in London.
Follow the Linnaean system, beware of immitations…..
. Calibrate yourself, your thoughts , and your affairs to the real snowman in person whenever showing up, , and grasp his weight and volumes and very constant body- temperature and why……..
………..because it is what rules over Las Vegas and southern California and Hollywood now.
You are apt to “scientific socialism” the Lysenco Stalin system with its vulgar national romantics of flowering garden paradice to the inaugurated bloody believers in the “science” and revelations, ….and dream of a better world “Schlaraffenland” (Gebr. .Grimm) the national political romantic verbal chat fraculty.
and ridicule and badger the autentic chief engineer, Master of Craft, Master of Art…. by that hooligan union ultra leftist devlish communist bloody devlish inspiration from Goethes Mephisto im Studierzimmer and from the Cateter, on systematics:
Mephisto: “Grau, treuer Freund, ist jede Teorie. Und Grün des Lebens goldner Baum”
The class warfare against Gallilei ,Darwin, Keppler, Brahe, Pasteur, and Newton, John Dalton Faraday, Tyndall, and The Royal Society, Kungliga Akademin, the Royal Frederiks, Harward, Cambridge and the NASA GISS with James Hansen is communist manifesto with o..
I can guarantee that I have finer trees and flowers in my garden than yours and finer birds also
along with Köppens and Darwins and Linnes and Otto Schmeils system, and finer weather along with Vilhelm Bjerknes` and Theo Löbsacks explainations Because then I do not need the substitutes and the artificial immitations from the experts and consumer cartoon industries.
jgnfldsays
One more and then I’ll shut up:
JG: Can 2 variables correlate if they wiggle at different places?
ChatGPT: Yes, it is possible for two variables to correlate even if they fluctuate or “wiggle” at different times or places. Correlation is a statistical measure that describes the relationship between two variables, and it is based on the degree to which changes in one variable are associated with changes in the other variable.
There are several ways in which two variables can be correlated, even if they fluctuate at different times or places. For example, they may be correlated if they have a similar overall pattern of change over time, even if they do not change at the exact same moments. Alternatively, they may be correlated if changes in one variable tend to occur shortly before or after changes in the other variable, even if they do not occur at the same time.
Ultimately, whether or not two variables correlate depends on the specific relationship between them, and this can be determined using statistical methods such as correlation coefficients or regression analysis.
JG: Can one estimate correlation by eye
ChatGPT: It is possible to make a rough estimate of correlation by eye, but it is not a reliable or accurate method of determining correlation. Correlation is a statistical measure that quantifies the degree of association between two variables, and it is best determined by calculating a correlation coefficient using a statistical software or calculator.
When attempting to estimate correlation by eye, one may look at a scatter plot of the data points for the two variables and make a subjective judgment about the degree of association between them. However, this method can be influenced by personal bias and perception, and it may not capture the true nature of the relationship between the variables. Additionally, correlation is influenced by many factors, including sample size, outliers, and the underlying distribution of the data, which can be difficult to accurately assess visually.
Therefore, while it is possible to make a rough estimate of correlation by eye, it is not a reliable or accurate method, and it is recommended to use statistical methods to determine correlation.
___
So…ChatGPT–which simply uses artificial rocks with interesting properties (i.e., chips) to “think” with–is apparently a much, much deeper thinker than our resident denier.!
Yes, really very fine, quite ingenious and brilliant if I may say so.
What have we got artificial intelligence for?
To keep up with and to beat the Victors of course, who have been draining their wine from that special thinktank in that special snobbish Chateau in Michigan for so many years now.
Chuck Hughessays
According to Eric Rignot, glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine and Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory: “This is an important study revealing that we have not seen anything yet in terms of how fast an ice sheet can retreat dynamically, not just melting away, but falling apart… This is not a model. This is real data. And it is frankly scary, even to me. These data should keep us awake at night,” Ibid.
Chuck Hughes: – “These data should keep us awake at night.”
Like this data: Per NOAA data, the daily average sea surface temperature (SST) between 60°N to 60°S latitude is still holding above the +21 °C line (up to 24 Apr 2023). From Apr 1 to 5 the daily average SST reached an all-time peak on the instrumental record (so far) of +21.1 °C. https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
In the YouTube video titled John Englander, Expert on Sea Level Rise, Talks with US Harbors About Changing Coastal Waters, duration 0:41:42, oceanographer John Englander said from time interval 0:14:48:
“But we’re now looking at feet of sea level rise this century. The latest NOAA projection in a paper that came out since we last talked, it was in February, looks at 10-to-12 inches of sea level rise as a global average by mid-century. But then in the second half of century, between 2-to-7 feet, in other words they’re noting the acceleration which is happening decade-by-decade now. The rate of ice melting on land, and therefore the rate of global sea level rise, has tripled in thirty years. It’s gone from an average of a millimetre-and-a-half to about 5 millimetres in thirty years. Hard to notice, it’s fractions of an inch, but it’s the acceleration that should get our attention, like compounding interest.”
And from time interval 0:18:39:
“And then two is, knowing the planet is already 1.1 degrees Celsius, right around 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, that heat’s in the ocean, that’s not going anywhere quick, even if we stop burning fossil fuels, the heat that’s in the ocean will continue to melt the ice for centuries, and that’s unavoidable now, because of the tremendous energy stored in the ocean. 93% of the excess energy that we’re trapping in the atmosphere goes into the sea, and that acts like a hot rock fuel, or a storage battery for heat, and as I say, the truth is, even if we can solve the energy problem, and be more resilient, that the heat that’s in the ocean is going to cause the ice sheets (above me there), Greenland and Antarctica, the big white spots on the world, um, the ice on land, it’s going to cause them to melt faster and faster, and raise sea level and change the shoreline. That’s just fact.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXskGqw4Uxo
From the previous article I posted from counterpunch:
*The Batchelor study claims that “pulses of sea level rise could also be much greater than the long-term average rates currently projected by climate models… during past geological intervals of rapid warming, there’s evidence of sea level increasing at a rate of up to 20 inches per decade during episodes of rapid sea level ice sheet disintegration,” Ibid.*
Chuck Hughessays
I wish people would stop responding to Victor. It eats up a lot of valuable real estate on this site and accomplishes absolutely nothing. Victor wins by tying up the conversation with bullshit, which is his only goal. Why are you helping him?
zebrasays
Chuck…… lost cause. As I think I’ve pointed out (perhaps to you) previously, it’s a type of co-dependency.
What’s unfortunate, beyond the waste of bandwidth, is the impression it probably leaves with any new visitors to this site.
But addiction is a powerful force.
Chuck Hughessays
@gavin Can we start another thread just for responses to Victor since he’s pretty well taken over this one?
Victorsays
I’m reluctant to post again on this thread as the debate over the evidence I’ve been pointing to could go on forever. Nevertheless, there are a few points I feel the need to respond to. I’ll try to be brief.
“Its been explained many times that sulphate aerosols and cooler air parcels carry a long way from their sources to remote locations and cause a cooling effect in such locations.” Volcanic aerosols can reach into the stratosphere and can spread from there to very remote locations, true. As I understand it, however, aerosols produced through the industrial (or domestic) burning of fossil fuels accumulate for the most part at or near ground level — which is how they can become dangerous pollutants. Such aerosols apparently have a life of only a few days. If that’s the case then it’s hard to see how they could also travel long distances.
“Im afraid your personal incredulity does not overturn the explanations, maps, and science studies.”
I’m aware of the maps you’ve referenced but remain unconvinced. If there’s something you can find in the literature that explains HOW such aerosols can somehow persist to the point of traveling thousands of miles to various remote locations I’d be happy to reconsider.
“Take Victor’s no correlation claim (except for one short period of time)—is this evidence? NO, it is a claim made by someone with zero expertise—while the experts show the correlation to be real.” My blog post demonstrates very clearly that the scattergram produced by a Mr. Grumbine (very similar to those produced by MAR and BPL), which purports to demonstrate a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is misleading. The response: I don’t understand statistics. Sorry but it’s not necessary to understand statistics to see the obvious error revealed in my post.
“I pointed out previously that Victor had provided no citation to support his incorrect contention that temperature increases after 2015 through to 2022 were allegedly attributed to the 2015 el nino.:
Here’s what I wrote back near the beginning of this thread: “And the abrupt temperature rises since 2016 have been attributed to unusually intense El Ninos.” Note the plural case. There were indeed two such spikes. And after the second, as I demonstrated, temperatures began to subside. So yes I got lazy and failed to respond as precisely as I could have. Stop being such a pedant.
“Those [post hiatus] years are clear evidence of underlying warming of the climate system and that warming is correlated to rising CO2 levels.”
The events of only a few years would, in the past, have been rejected as “noise.” But now that this uptick fits the mainstream view so well, that objection has been forgotten. Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years. Let’s wait and see what happens next.
“He provided a chart of ocean surface temperatures when the statement was made that CO2 levels are highly correlated to the increasing ocean warming which is a direct result of CO2 forcing We are NOT talking about surface temperatures which is an indirect effect. He is either being totally disingenuous or he is stupid.”
Both the chart I referenced and the graphs to which you referred reflect temperatures of the upper ocean. And yes there are differences. However, the graphs presented in the websites you linked to begin at 1960 and 1955, while the graph I linked to takes us all the way back to 1880, revealing the clear dip in ocean temperatures between 1940 and the mid-70s. While CO2 levels were steadily rising.
It would be far more “scientific” if you dropped all the pointless rhetoric and concentrated on the evidence. The responses I’m getting here are consistent with the ravings of a cult, NOT a body of scientific investigators.
“When attempting to estimate correlation by eye, one may look at a scatter plot of the data points for the two variables and make a subjective judgment about the degree of association between them. However, this method can be influenced by personal bias and perception, and it may not capture the true nature of the relationship between the variables.” Precisely!
jgnfldsays
Vic: “It would be far more “scientific” if you dropped all the pointless rhetoric and concentrated on the evidence.”
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I am programmed to focus on providing accurate and evidence-based responses. However, it’s important to note that language is a complex and multifaceted tool, and rhetoric can sometimes play a role in effectively communicating evidence and ideas to others.
Rhetoric, in this context, refers to the use of language to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. While it’s true that some rhetoric can be distracting or misleading, it can also be an effective means of conveying complex ideas and evidence in a way that is accessible to a wider audience.
In any case, when it comes to evaluating evidence and making scientific claims, it is always important to prioritize the facts and avoid any unnecessary or misleading language. Clear and concise communication is key to conveying scientific information and fostering a deeper understanding of complex ideas.
—
Summary: Gramps living to 102 is NOT “evidence” that tobacco does not cause cancer. It’s rhetoric, not science.
CCHolleysays
More of Victor spouting his non-expertise silliness.
I’m aware of the maps you’ve referenced but remain unconvinced. If there’s something you can find in the literature that explains HOW such aerosols can somehow persist to the point of traveling thousands of miles to various remote locations I’d be happy to reconsider.
Multiple papers explaining how aerosol cooling indirectly effects global temperatures have been provided in the past. Victor chooses to ignore them.
The events of only a few years would, in the past, have been rejected as “noise.” But now that this uptick fits the mainstream view so well, that objection has been forgotten. Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years.
Silly Victor. Natural variation “noise” about the trend always exists and that is why you look at a minimum of 30 years to draw conclusions. No one ignores data as just noise. But the point is Victor just rejects these years after 2015 outright when evaluating what is happening or looking at correlation. Any good scientist or statistician would consider all the data and the more the better. Period.
Both the chart I referenced and the graphs to which you referred reflect temperatures of the upper ocean.
Nope. This is a lie. Victor’s charts are surface temperatures which are a proxy for the temperatures of the air directly above the water and do not in anyway reflect temperatures of the upper ocean or more importantly, certainly do not represent ocean heat content. The correlation discussed is for the heat content of the ocean which is completely different than surface temperatures. This is real evidence, evidence Victor refuses to acknowledge.,
However, the graphs presented in the websites you linked to begin at 1960 and 1955, while the graph I linked to takes us all the way back to 1880, revealing the clear dip in ocean temperatures between 1940 and the mid-70s. While CO2 levels were steadily rising.
Again, Victor’s charts only show surface temperatures and NOT ocean heat content and prove nothing relative to ocean heat content. Unfortunately there is not enough data for ocean heat content prior to 1955 so one cannot draw any conclusion for what it actually was prior to then. Regardless, the discussion was correlation and the increases in ocean heat content from the 1950s on is well correlated to increases in CO2 levels with no slow down which is the point that Victor refuses to accept. Evidence Victor and his lack of expertise, critical thinking skills and inability to do science refuses to accept.
It would be far more “scientific” if you dropped all the pointless rhetoric and concentrated on the evidence.
Yup, one should concentrate on ALL the evidence. Advice Victor himself refuses to take.
nigeljsays
Victor
“I’m aware of the maps you’ve referenced but remain unconvinced. If there’s something you can find in the literature that explains HOW such aerosols can somehow persist to the point of traveling thousands of miles to various remote locations I’d be happy to reconsider.”
I have already posted studies on all those issues and several times! So have other people. You have to show line by line, detail by detail where the studies are wrong. So far you haven’t even bothered to respond to them. I dont have the time or inclination to try and find the information and post it yet again.
You could also google that sort of information yourself. Many studies have been done on the effects of aerosols mid last century.
“Here’s what I wrote back near the beginning of this thread: “And the abrupt temperature rises since 2016 have been attributed to unusually intense El Ninos.” Note the plural case. There were indeed two such spikes. And after the second, as I demonstrated, temperatures began to subside. So yes I got lazy and failed to respond as precisely as I could have. Stop being such a pedant.”
I can’t find your quotation, and I don’t have all day to look for it. Anyway to the best of my knowledge the warming after 2016 has NOT been attributed by scientists to two unusually intense el ninos. You have also not provided a scientific citation to support your claim.
You also have your basic facts wrong. There was a weak el nino 2014 – 2015, an intense el nino in 2015 – 2016 and a weak el nino in 2018 -2019 and the other years were la nina years or neutral years. List of el ninos and la ninas here:
Its beside the point anyway. The alleged causes of the warming don’t change whether there is a correlation or not between CO2 and warming. A correlation either exists or it doesn’t, regardless of causal factors. That is basic statistics 101. Please provide a citation that says otherwise.
Over the period 1900 – 2022 there is a good ( but not perfect) correlation between CO2 and warming shown unequivocally by math’s tests. BPL posted his calculations on one. You have not falsified the calculations.
You seem intelligent, but you clearly have mental blocks. Or perhaps you are just payed to deliberately make up and spread smooth sounding nonsense.
Geoff Miellsays
Victor: – “Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years.”
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I’d suggest you should look at the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO’s) State of the Global Climate 2022, published on 21 Apr 2024.
The WMO State of the Global Climate report 2022 focuses on key climate indicators – greenhouse gases, temperatures, sea level rise, ocean heat and acidification, sea ice and glaciers. It also highlights the impacts of climate change and extreme weather.
> Drought, floods and heatwaves affect large parts of the world and the costs are rising
> Global mean temperatures for the past 8 years have been the highest on record
> Sea level and ocean heat are at record levels – and this trend will continue for many centuries
> Antarctic sea ice falls to lowest extent on record
> Europe shatters records for glacier melt
From mountain peaks to ocean depths, climate change continued its advance in 2022. Droughts, floods and heatwaves affected communities on every continent and cost many billions of dollars. Antarctic sea ice fell to its lowest extent on record and the melting of some European glaciers was, literally, off the charts.
The State of the Global Climate 2022 shows the planetary scale changes on land, in the ocean and in the atmosphere caused by record levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases. For global temperature, 2015-2022 were the eight warmest on record despite the cooling impact of a La Niña event for the past three years. Melting of glaciers and sea level rise – which again reached record levels in 2022 – will continue for up to thousands of years.
The website includes links to:
* Press Releases (in English, French, Spanish, Chinese & Russian)
* Press conference launch of report, duration 39 minutes
* State of the Global Climate 2022 documents (in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian & Spanish) in pdf format https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate
But I guess ‘computer says no’, aye Victor?
Victor: – “As for Rignot’s presentation, you really must read the blog post I linked you to in my previous post…”
Eric Rignot’s scholarly record includes:
Citations: 44,760 overall; 20,430 since 2018
h-index: 100 overall; 70 since 2018
i10-index: 274 overall; 213 since 2018
V: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend,
BPL: Let’s just test that.
I took Hadley CRUTEM4 temperature anomalies and regressed them on the calendar year for 1850-2019 (N = 170). R^2 = 69% and p < 3.0 x 10^-44. So not only is there a consistent long term warming trend, but it is statistically significant off the scale.
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor: “I’m reluctant to post again on this thread …”
You really should trust those instincts.
jgnfldsays
ChatGPT: I’m sorry to hear that you are feeling reluctant to post again on this thread. It’s important to remember that you have the autonomy to choose whether or not to engage in any online conversation, including this one.
If you’re feeling hesitant about posting again, it may be helpful to reflect on what’s causing that reluctance. Is it a fear of judgment or criticism? Are you unsure of how to respond to previous comments? Or do you simply not feel comfortable sharing more information at this time?
Once you’ve identified the root of your reluctance, you can take steps to address it. For example, if you’re worried about being judged, remember that everyone has their own opinions and experiences. You don’t have to agree with others, and they don’t have to agree with you. It’s also important to recognize that criticism, while uncomfortable, can be helpful in improving your understanding of a topic.
Alternatively, if you’re unsure how to respond to previous comments, take some time to gather your thoughts and do additional research. You can always ask for clarification or further explanation if needed.
“Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years. “
Victor: Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years.
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I must remain neutral and provide information based on scientific evidence and research.
The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate is unequivocally warming, and the primary cause of this warming is the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. While there may be natural variations in the climate over short periods, the long-term trend is clear, and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming.
Multiple independent temperature records, including surface, atmospheric, and oceanic measurements, show that the Earth has been warming over the past century, with the most significant warming occurring since the 1970s. Moreover, this warming trend has been observed across the globe and is consistent with the basic physics of greenhouse gas warming.
While there may be some short-term fluctuations due to natural variability, the long-term trend is what matters, and it is clear that the Earth’s climate is warming due to human activities. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that there has been no evidence of consistent long-term warming trend for 130 years.
How is corelation determined and what is it? There is more than one and only one method, a statistical one, and if you chose a wrong or less adequate method, you may fail to find it where there obviously is co- relation. and in other situations believe that you have found and shown corelation where there is none.
What about zodiacal astrology as a training example ? There obviously is a co relation between the sun and earth and moon and day and night summer and winter and the tides.
But what about jupiter saturnus venus mercur and pluto in theese or those zodiacal signs and your feelings and chanses and what you ought to do and not to do because of that? Horoscopy of Kings and warlords has been quite fameous and successful, especially when their respective court astrologists and political advicers knew each other and worked in the same tradition and had stuck their heads together. Because those kings and princes did not relate to the stars and to the battlefields, they co- related rather to their respective court astrologists. who could rule the very situation that way.
Who are todays spindoctor court astrologists able to stick their heads together and to rule in the same very convincing way so that kings and princes and primadonnas forget the very seasonal and holiday duties, the fullmoon venus and jupiter and comet- festivals and even the tides?
On a lonely island way out to sea in Northern Norway they had cows. Probably for beef production because they found to set out all the cows on another lonely island for summer vacation, but the ox at some distance from that again, so that nothing wrong should happen during vacation.
As they came back to look after the ox on his special small island, he was not there. Pity, they thought he had tried the swim and drowned because it was quite a distance over to the other lands, with strong tidal currents also .
But as they came over to the cows, rather to their big surprize, , the ox was there……. due to a strange , obviously quite strong, co- relation between oxes and cows. That they should have known about.
Flock animals are co- relating and there are many examples. What signals and forces are keeping those flock- relations together? Bees, Mosquitoes, Cows, wolves, Birds, whales,…,.. can signal and co- relate also even way distance by sound and by perfumes. They hardly co- relate and hang together eventually repel each other by dry statistics.
Moral:
Do not forget and do not ignore all the other fameous ways in which atoms molecules ants and birds and humans and societies and even stars and galaxies can relate and co- relate. Because, there are several categories of relations and co- relations in the universe to be understood and taken for serious..
Further on co- herence and co- relations and lacks of the same.
I did enlight on the cow- situation way out at sea on lonely islands from where criitical stuudiies are quite especially fameous..
It showed that the Ox,… quite regardless of human opinions and arrangements rather did co- relate to the commerciallized flock of cows, thus swam over unseen to their big surprize. But they should have known.
That was a human error and mis- consception that set normal life in danger.
Alllready Noah knew better.
. But, what about the stars? how do they relate and co- relate or do they not??????
Need I say more?
There are many things that relate and co- relate for many reasons.
And many things that do not relate and co- relate for just as many reasons.
When Priinces and Primadonnas hardly relate to the stars, not even to the sun and the moon and the earth anymore, because they only relate to their respective Court Astrologists, who stick their heads together or who do not even stick their heads together ,…,
Where are we then?
“Co- exisistance
or no existance! ”
SANN
(Piet Hein, Kumbel)
Victorsays
From RonR:
Victor,
“Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years. “
V: Interesting set of photos. So yes, glaciers are retreating. But when did that transformation begin? Certainly not during the period from 1940- 1979, when so many were predicting a coming ice age. Most likely during the 20 years that followed, when global temperatures rose rather dramatically — the ONLY period when CO2 levels and temperatures rose in tandem.
“Multiple papers explaining how aerosol cooling indirectly effects global temperatures have been provided in the past. Victor chooses to ignore them.
V: The paper cited above is based on models using simulated data rather than actual measurements. Indeed it’s difficult to understand how it would be possible to positively identify the original location of specific aerosols from, say, Europe, China, India, etc.
From the same paper: “Emissions of aerosols and their precursors are spatially heterogeneous and short-lived and thereby expected to exert complex responses as emissions of air pollutants are reduced through policies enacted to protect human health.” While this study is based on estimates of aerosol distributions over widely scattered regions, I couldn’t find any attempt to explain just HOW such “heterogeneous and short-lived” emissions could manage to reach so many remote regions in the amounts necessary to make any significant difference in local temperatures. I’m not in a position to seriously contest the work of experts in this field, but I remain perplexed as to how their conclusions were reached.
“Again, Victor’s charts only show surface temperatures and NOT ocean heat content and prove nothing relative to ocean heat content. Unfortunately there is not enough data for ocean heat content prior to 1955 so one cannot draw any conclusion for what it actually was prior to then.”
And yet you conclude, on the basis of such incomplete evidence, that a correlation exists.
“Yup, one should concentrate on ALL the evidence. Advice Victor himself refuses to take.” Excuse me? I’ve provided all the available evidence while you base your conclusions on evidence that is very clearly incomplete. Give me a break!
“You seem intelligent, but you clearly have mental blocks. Or perhaps you are just payed to deliberately make up and spread smooth sounding nonsense.”
If some big oil company offered me money to do this sort of thing I would gladly accept. Unfortunately nothing of that sort ever happened or is likely to happen. I’m just basically a poor starving artist, living in a garret on bread and cheese. :-)
Seriously, the difference between us is that you have an agenda while I don’t. I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if presented with truly convincing evidence. Very clearly you are not. As with just about everyone posting here, “climate change” has become part of your identity and no amount of evidence, logic or argument will ever change your mind. Sad.
nigeljsays
Victor
“I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if presented with truly convincing evidence.”
You are clearly not prepared to admit you were wrong despite absolutely clear evidence. Some examples:
1) You have made an incorrect claim that the warming after 2016 “has been attributed” to two intense el ninos. You have not backed up that claim with a scientific citation of what experts have claimed that. Yet you have not admitted you were wrong.
2) You claimed that there were two large el ninos post 2014. I posted evidence there was only one. Yet you haven’t admitted you were wrong.
3)You are also wrong at a technical level about your claim that warming after 2016 is just due to two el ninos. And you haven’t admitted this. The warming effects of el ninos gets cancelled out by the cooling effects of la ninas. Its just a circular cycle of energy already in the system at that point in time. So el ninos do not create warming as such. Over the last few decades human activity is creating a warming effect, and el ninos and la ninas are just riding along on that effect. .The intensity of el ninos and la ninas is also not measured just by their peak temperatures.
And you have been shown to be completely wrong about the correlation issue, by experts. But you have never admitted you are wrong. Instead you just go on repeating your absurd claims.
You have made several incorrect claims related to aerosols, you havent admitted you were wrong and you have repeated them.
So dont lecture me about who admits or doesn’t admit they were wrong.
You don’t know these things related to ENSO because I suspect you don’t actually read how the climate system works. I believe you are over confident, and think that because you had good grades at school (as did I) you dont need to. But theres no substitute for having at least some background knowledge. While I’m a scientific lay person, I do read things.. My agenda is knowledge.
CCHolleysays
And the Victor silliness continues.
I couldn’t find any attempt to explain just HOW such “heterogeneous and short-lived” emissions could manage to reach so many remote regions in the amounts necessary to make any significant difference in local temperatures. I’m not in a position to seriously contest the work of experts in this field, but I remain perplexed as to how their conclusions were reached.
This has been explained a thousand times on here, but Victor apparently cannot read for comprehension.
We are talking about the indirect global effects of aerosols. INDIRECT.
Aerosols have a huge effect on clouds. They promote their formation increasing cloud coverage, make clouds more reflective increasing the amount of sunlight reflected by the clouds, and increase cloud lifetimes. These effects all increase cooling and extend the regional effect of the aerosols.
Furthermore, the reflection of sunlight by aerosols and clouds have a significant effect on vertical temperature gradients and temperature gradients drive atmospheric circulation. Therefore, aerosols can effect the distribution of the reduced temperatures well beyond their areas of coverage, even globally.
This is why general circulation models are used to show how aerosols effect global temperatures. And studies using these models clearly show that SO2 emissions from North America and Europe during the period of 1958-1980 likely had a significant global effect on temperatures.
In addition, one of the major lines of evidence that aerosols masked warming is that during the period of 1958-1980, night time temperatures continued to rise, which is exactly what would be expected with increasing greenhouse gas levels restricting heat loss to space.
And yet you conclude, on the basis of such incomplete evidence, that a correlation exists.
Actually, sixty-seven or so years of steadily rising ocean heat content which unlike air surface temperatures is a direct effect of increased CO2 forcing is extremely convincing evidence, unless one does not want to see it. This is some of the plethora of strong evidence that Victor totally ignores while accusing others of ignoring evidence. Too funny.
I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if presented with truly convincing evidence. Very clearly you are not. As with just about everyone posting here, “climate change” has become part of your identity and no amount of evidence, logic or argument will ever change your mind. Sad.
ROTFLMAO. Once again, the pot calling the kettle black. Perfectly willing to admit he was wrong? Nope, not a chance. Not in a million years.
Still waiting for Victor to actually learn something about the science he is rejecting.
Adam Leasays
“Seriously, the difference between us is that you have an agenda while I don’t. I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if presented with truly convincing evidence. Very clearly you are not. As with just about everyone posting here, “climate change” has become part of your identity and no amount of evidence, logic or argument will ever change your mind. Sad.”
That looks like narcissic projection to me. Drop the mask, you don’t fool anyone.
Floydsays
As a reader this is my two cents worth. Since stubborn, and some likely professional, deniers and obfuscators like to tie up these threads, make a separate thread that you keep off to one side, near the top (so that they can’t complain that it’s “hidden”). An ongoing “Deniers” or “Free Speech” thread.. If people want to argue with them forever and ever and ever, just want to polish up on their debating skills or have a little diversion time they can go there.
Keep this one, though, Unforced Variations, the way it is in the main line under your own posts. A monthly thread, where supporters of what science is saying, or people with what they believe are legitimate questions or critiques that they want answers to, and after some debate are willing to learn from, or who actually have a point to be made (not stupid stuff like flat earthism, or the moon landing was faked type things, or people who are just trolling), can post and discuss rationally among themselves, and/or post and comment upon on topic news stories.
People who are insulting in their comments, though, should not be allowed to post at all until they can learn some decency. and maturity. Most places operate under a code of basic civility.
Piotrsays
I thought this separate enclosure for the deniers already exists – it’s called a BoreHole. For some reasons the administrators are unwilling to use this option, and rather then use it – they have considered throwing the baby with the bathwater of shutting down the Unforced Variations altogether – thus handing a major victory for the Victors.
If you are afraid of charges of censorship:
– first, posting on this website is a privilege, not a right, and the Victors are free to look for denialist websites they will be celebrated as fiercely independent minds, who manage to overcome their lack of even elementary scientific education and were able to unmask a global conspiracy of 10s of thousands (?) of scientists, under the cryptonym: “Global Climate Change”
– second you are not censoring them – they will be still have their voice – only in the thread they belong to – the Bore Hole. We all know the few Victors who do the vast majority of deniers work here – so how difficult is to set up a direct forward to the BoreHole? And if any of the normal user wants to engage them there – they could go over there and comment on the borehole posts.
And to soften the blow to the deniers egos, to follow jgnfld take on the matter a few posts above – perhaps the administrators can supply this Victors enclosure with ChatGPT link, so the Victors could battle bravely against ChatGPT to their little hearts’ delight, while leaving Unforced Variation to the relevant discussions?
nigeljsays
Piotr. I agree overall. Victors comments have degenerated into pure trolling and spamming. I have suggested previously that the website put all Victors comments in the borehole, unless he raises something new.
This website doesn’t enforce its own moderation rules very much. Its like having a speed limit but no fines or enforcement. People will just abuse the rules.
At the start of April, the NSIDC described Antarctic sea ice as“Since the seasonal minimum reached on February 21 [which was a record minimum], Antarctic sea ice has expanded at a fairly typical pace.” But over the last couple of weeks since Antarctic sea ice has been expanding through the freeze-up more slowly and thus has been setting record daily low SIE again for the last week. As of 26th April, with less than a third of the year behind us, 2023 has claimed top spot for the number of days with record daily low Antarctic SIE. Graphics of Antarctic SIE anomaly (with the annual cycle removed) are shown here – graphs 3 & 3a.
Days of record low SIE in JAXA
2023 … 69 to 26th Apr
2022 … 68
2017 … 67
2016 … 65
2019 … 48
1986 … 20
2002 … 11
2018 … 11
2001 … 7
The spectacularly low records that appeared to be likely when Antarctic SIE began to look exceptional back in December last year haven’t yet recurred.
But one set of daily records that have been described as “off the chart” in one newspaper is the daily global SST which looks to be setting a ‘scorchyisimo!!’ record for April, perhaps +0.1ºC above all previous years. So it would not be unexpected if the global April SAT anomaly (two thirds of which is SST) will also be shown ‘scorchyisimo!!’, and that with the El Niño yet to arrive!!!
patrick O'twentysevensays
Continued-ish from This series of comments I posted way back in Sept 2020 as well as some of my earlier blog posts, I submit for your peer review Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13. – unfortunately I found out that my free plan only allows something like 100 (views or visitors?) per month, so please feel free to copy/download text and figures – especially the figures since I could always post text here (though the equations might not look as nice?); and if you deem my work so worthy, feel free to share/post it (but not out of context, of course).
(Should I try a different blog platform?)
I didn’t realize this at first, but my grayscale line-of-sight screen views with the black background figures are qualitatively similar to looking up from near the tropopause.
Question: Has anyone else done diagrams/figures/artistic impressions like this yet? I’ve given up on the idea of doing quantitatively accurate full-spectrum color heat vision views – ideally this should be done with software that could take input from Modtran or etc. and use equations to plot R,G,B values over the field of view. Doing ‘artistic impression’ versions may be less daunting.
Also, the screen views of cross sections would ideally be done with a program that randomly distributes dots, foreground to background based on an unplotted coordinate z’ and color/brightness determined by another unplotted coordinate z (where eg. x,y area across column vertical in z, maybe tilted, then rotated so that z’ (which could be z, or along the tilted axis of the column, but could be x or y or …) is orthogonal to the plotted coordinates. I’m using Excel spreadsheets – I don’t think it was really designed to plot 10,000+ points in 100 series (the images I did had much fewer series).
PS
One thing I’ve worked out (see upcoming part 15?) is that, for isotropic absorbtion cross sections, the net spectral radiant cooling per (if I did the math right) unit ‘optical volume’ (horizontal area * vertical absorbing optical depth) is
4π sr * [ Bν – Lν(4π sr av) ]
= 4 pi sr *
the difference between the Planck function and the directional average of ambient spectral radiance;
this is a simple average, no weighting by cos(θ). But this has interesting consequences for skin temperature; the formula I’m familiar with (Tskin^4 = 1/2 * Te^4, greybody, no solar heating of skin layer) technically only works if either absorption cross sections are proportional to cos(θ) or the OLR flux is composed of an isotropic radiance coming up from the whole bottom hemisphere.
patrick O'twentysevensays
Again, the link: Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13.
“unfortunately I found out that my free plan only allows something like 100 (views or visitors?) per month,” IDK, not sure about that any more…
“so please feel free to copy/download text and figures – especially the figures since I could always post text here (though the equations might not look as nice?); and if you deem my work so worthy, feel free to share/post it (but not out of context, of course).” – not to be too greedy, but if you quote me or show my diagrams, please cite me “patrick 027” (and let me know so I can visit) – otherwise, the underlying facts/theories are all common knowledge, I believe, so don’t worry about it.
I have a question about the concept of moist static energy (MSE). I’ve encountered in a textbook and more recently in a paper about storm tracks and climate change. The thing is,
MSE = gravitational potential energy + enthalpy + latent heat
But, enthalpy = work + internal energy
and that work is of thermal expansion, lifting up the overlying weight, which is the gravitational potential energy of the overlying air.
So isn’t it double-counting the work?
patrick O'twentysevensays
I should have said non-latent or dry enthalpy, as, in this context, the latent heat is also enthalpy – and now that I think about it, there’s a volume change with that, too! (the thermal expansion of air > contraction from condensation of H2O vapor, but heating a wet surface to evaporate H2O into the air obviously adds volume and gravitational potential energy to the atmosphere – (with a very minor reduction from lowering the wet surface, if you really want to get nitpicky)).
I really I’m puzzled by how MSE is supposed to account for energy… what am I missing?
PS Also: anybody know the mechanical (work) energy flux (ie kinetic energy, form drag) through the tropopause – eg., the wave driving of the Brewer Dobson and mesospheric overturning?
Victor, you seem to be saying that those glaciers only started to receding since 1980, and only within a 20 year period. Hmm. Wow! Yet the Cumulative Mass Changes Of Glaciers graph from the WGMS shows that it’s been going on at least since at least 1950.
You also say that the 20 year period since 1980 is “the ONLY period when CO2 levels and temperatures rose in tandem.” But when I look at this graph, Co2 and temperature look pretty well correlated to me.
There are always fluctuations in a big, open, living system. But it’s the general trend that we need to see, not all of the tiny, appearing to some that want to ONLY consider those, contradictions that occur in the process (but which will eventually give in to that trend in time). When a person is dying, for example, lots of little unexplainable things will occur in the body that tries to fight back (If you look at an MRI you’ll see lights going on and off). It’s desperate. And sometimes they win for a time, or in their localized areas for awhile. And one could get really confused if he only considers only those. But, again, you gotta see at the overall trend, look at the big picture.
Anyway, this back and forth could go on forever, so I should bow out.
ChatGPT: The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate is unequivocally warming, and the primary cause of this warming is the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. While there may be natural variations in the climate over short periods, the long-term trend is clear, and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. . .
While there may be some short-term fluctuations due to natural variability, the long-term trend is what matters, and it is clear that the Earth’s climate is warming due to human activities. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that there has been no evidence of consistent long-term warming trend for 130 years.
V: I’m impressed. The AI chatbot has managed to summarize the essence of the IPCC message rather elegantly. How “intelligent”! Also: how instructive. The quoted passage takes us to the heart of what is wrong with the thinking of so many climate scientists. Because what matters to science every bit as much as intelligence is critical thinking — of which AI seems completely unaware.
So yes, the Earth is significantly warmer now than it was in 1900. And yes, concentrations of CO2 are significantly higher than they were at that time. That’s all we need to know, isn’t it? The two must be correlated — and when we factor in what we’ve learned from “the physics,” it only makes sense to conclude that one must therefore be the cause of the other. An intelligent entity, whether human or artificial, can hardly conclude otherwise.
Only wait. An intelligent assessment of the evidence is not enough. When we apply a measure of critical thinking, certain very important questions arise. Looking more deeply into the evidence, we learn that CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century. Hence NO correlation. And during the next 40 years there was no warming trend at all. Again no correlation. 80 years with no correlation is far more than a “short-term fluctuation.” And while temperatures and CO2 levels did indeed rise together rather dramatically for the next 20 years, temperatures during the following 18 years rose only very slightly, while CO2 levels continued to soar. Applying a measure of critical thinking one can only conclude that the 20 years where correlation did occur is far better characterized as a “short-term fluctuation” than the previous 80 years. And the same can be said for the last 7 0r 8 years, a brief period — the ONLY period aside from the 20 already mentioned. where temperatures rose to any significant degree.
So. I’m sorry, but the oh so “intelligent” assessment provided by the AI bot, so conveniently in accord with that of the IPCC, is at best misleading, at worse totally wrong.
CCHolleysays
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
So in Victor’s fantasy world he has better critical thinking skills than all the thousands of scientists that have contributed to our understanding of the climate system over the past two hundred years. Those who for the most part have PhD level educations and were formally trained at a high level in the physical sciences with curriculums that promote the development of analytical problem solving and critical thinking skills. In Victor’s simple mind these highly intelligent individuals are bested by a musicologist with zero training in the physical sciences and likely no university level course work in higher mathematics nor statistics. Um, regardless of Victor’s inflated ego this just is not likely in the least. Not a chance in hell actually.
So the thing about physical scientists for the most part is that they have an insatiable desire to learn and increase their level of knowledge and understanding of how the physical universe functions especially in their area of expertise. The quest for truth and knowledge is what drives them. The science and the scientific method was developed so that mankind could gain a real understanding of the world around us pushing aside superstition and politically motivated theories of the universe. Although not always perfect, science has proven to be quite effective.
Victor thinks he knows how science works but he most obviously doesn’t. Unlike good scientists, he has no desire or passion to gain knowledge and understanding beyond his simple conclusion that no direct correlation means the science is flawed. For what nine years now many have attempted to educate Victor on the science yet Victor fails to learn a damned thing. He still doesn’t have even a basic understanding of how the climate system works or the physics behind CO2 warming. He has never made even a rudimentary effort to learn anything about the science and failed to even grasp that it is the surface that warms the atmosphere and not the other way around.
So Victor writes a cute piece on the importance of critical thinking skills in evaluating evidence. He states with confidence that in evaluating the evidence the thousands of stupid scientists failed to take into account that temperatures have not risen lock-step with rising Co2 levels. My goodness, how could they be so dumb?! Well obviously to most because the simple problem with Victor’s story is that it is based on a totally wrong assumption. An assumption that anyone with even an ounce of understanding of the science knows to be false. False based on the actual science and evidence not on some alleged cult like behavior that Victor has dreamed up for real scientists. Scientists that actually are quite naturally skeptical and highly unlikely to be fooled in mass especially after 200 years of strong work in gaining an understanding of climate. But Victor is so blinded by his preconceived notion that the science is flawed he fails to recognize his own limitations in his knowledge and ability to judge the science. Badly. Sadly.
Still waiting for Victor to learn something about the science that he is rejecting.
Rinse lather repeat. It never ends.
Ray Ladburysays
Weaktor, you keep repeating the same argument over and over and over again, despite the fact that the argument has been diced and sliced and fried and returned to you on a platter accompanying your posteior.
Fact: the enhancement of the greenhouse effect by 1900 was not negligible.
Fact: the period in question did have intensified solar activity and so TSI.
Fact: the period in question did demonstrate a lull in volcanic activity.
Fact: the period in question was too short to qualify as “climate”
Fact: the subsequent period post 1940 was 1) a time of war, and so increased aerosols due to troop movements, conflagrations,… followed by a post-war boom with emission of lots of sulfate aerosols (as is evident in any picture from the period of say, London or Los Angeles.
Your dismissal of the entire field of climate science is not motivated by “facts,” but rather by your desire to dismiss the implications that the current fossil-fuel-based economy and civilization are not sustainable.
Fact: the science does not give a flying fuck what you think. Argument from consequences has been recognized as a logical fallacy for thousands of years.
jgnfldsays
Victor: An intelligent assessment of the evidence is not enough (in science).
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I must acknowledge that this statement is true. While intelligent assessment of evidence is a crucial component of the scientific process, it is not sufficient on its own. Science also requires rigorous testing, replication, and verification of hypotheses through empirical experimentation.
In other words, it is not enough to simply consider the evidence and come to a conclusion based on intuition or personal bias. The scientific method requires that theories and hypotheses be tested through systematic observation and experimentation, and that results be independently verified by other scientists.
Furthermore, science also involves peer review, where the scientific community scrutinizes research findings and methodologies to ensure their validity and reliability. This process helps to minimize bias and error and ensures that scientific findings are trustworthy and accurate.
In summary, while intelligent assessment of evidence is an important part of science, it is not sufficient on its own. The scientific process also requires rigorous experimentation, verification, and peer review to ensure the validity and reliability of research findings.
—
Care to provide us with ” rigorous experimentation, verification, and peer review to ensure the validity and reliability of research findings”???
V: Looking more deeply into the evidence, we learn that CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century. Hence NO correlation.
BPL: Your “hence” is a non sequitur. That’s not how one measures a correlation, Victor. Quit making up your own definitions.
jgnfldsays
Victor: Looking more deeply into the evidence, we learn that CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century. Hence NO correlation.
ChatGPT: I’m sorry, but the statement that “CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century” is not supported by the scientific evidence. In fact, numerous studies have shown that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution is the primary driver of global warming over the past century.
While it is true that other factors, such as natural variability and changes in solar radiation, can contribute to short-term temperature fluctuations, the long-term trend is clear: the Earth’s surface temperature has increased by about 1.1°C since pre-industrial times, and the scientific consensus is that this warming is largely due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which release large amounts of greenhouse gases, including CO2, into the atmosphere.
It is important to base our understanding of climate change on sound scientific evidence, and the overwhelming body of research shows that there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.
—
Turns out artificial silicon crystals can see the correlation!
nigeljsays
BPL
Yes. Victor thinks about correlations in a peculiar way.. Instead of just testing the data to see if there’s a correlation, he has this assumption that first there must be potential cause and effect before we can conclude theres a correlation. He has the whole thing backwards. You just test the data to see if theres a correlation, and how strong it is regardless of causation, or the level of causation that might exist.
He should look at some of the strong correlations that exist between variables with no cause and effect know as spurious correlations. They still correlate!
Of course with greenhouse theory we have both causation AND a decent correlation between CO2 and warming since 1900. Which strongly implicates greenhouses gases in the warming. And we dont have any other compelling explanations for warming overall during the period.
I am a sceptical person, but it utterly mystifies me why anyone would dispute the really obvious correlation between CO2 and Warming since 1900. I dont know if Victor has some sort of mental block as you suggested, or he a troll that knows full well he is posting bullshit. Either way it ends up like trolling, and something strange is going on in his head.
According to jgnfld (see previous UV thread),
“. . . there are many studies which clearly show that natural variation alone cannot explain the observed warming.
V: My response seems to have vanished into cyberspace for some reason. (I’m not seeing it in the Bore Hole either.) So I’m having another go at it here:
V: What “observed warming”? During the warming period from the beginning of the 20th century through ca. 1940, CO2 levels were not high enough to matter all that much (see my previous quote from Spencer Weart). From ca. 1940 through ca. 1979, we see no evidence of any warming trend at all. From 1998 through 2016, we have the notorious “hiatus,” during which global warming appears to have paused. (See my previous reference to the paper by Fyfe et al.). And the abrupt temperature rises since 2016 have been attributed to unusually intense El Ninos. So all you’re left with is ca. 1979 – 1998, when global temperatures did in fact appear to rise in tandem with a rise in CO2 levels — a period of only 20 years.
jgnfld: A.1 It is unequivocal that human influence has warmed the atmosphere, ocean and land. Widespread and rapid changes in the atmosphere, ocean, cryosphere and biosphere have occurred.
V: Yes, but the ONLY period that can reasonably be attributed to “human influence” is the aforementioned 1979 – 1998.
jgnfld: A.1.1 Observed increases in well-mixed greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations since around 1750 are unequivocally caused by human activities. Since 2011 (measurements reported in AR5), concentrations have continued to increase in the atmosphere, reaching annual averages of 410 parts per million (ppm) for carbon dioxide (CO2), 1866 parts per billion (ppb) for methane (CH4), and 332 ppb for nitrous oxide (N2O) in 2019. 6Land and ocean have taken up a near-constant proportion (globally about 56% per year) of CO2 emissions from human activities over the past six decades, with regional differences (high confidence).
V: Yes, but the above paragraph refers ONLY to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, which hardly anyone contests, with no reference to its effects on climate.
Victor; – “What “observed warming”?”
Observed global mean surface temperature warming rate has been about +0.18 °C per decade (best linear fit) for the period 1970 to 2015.
See Fig 19 showing the global mean surface temperature anomaly (relative to 1880-1920 baseline) for the historical record period 1880 to 2022, plus a projection of between +0.36 and +0.27°C per decade warming rates out to 2050, presented in the Hansen et. al. pre-print paper titled Global warming in the pipeline
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474
Observed sea level rise is accelerating:
1993-1998: +1.5 mm per year
1998-2012: +3.2 mm per year
2012-2018: +5.0 mm per year
See the graph displayed in the YouTube video titled Sea Level Rise Can No Longer Be Stopped, What Next? – with John Englander from time interval 0:27:20.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvqY2NcBWI8
Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extents are diminishing.
https://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/charctic-interactive-sea-ice-graph/
Upper ocean heat content is increasing.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
“V: Yes, but the ONLY period that can reasonably be attributed to “human influence” is the aforementioned 1979 – 1998.”
Thank you for your “analysis”. I suggest most sensible people will go with the expertise of the professionals in this case, however.
“V: Yes, but the above paragraph refers ONLY to the rise in greenhouse gas emissions, which hardly anyone contests, with no reference to its effects on climate.”
So, you apparently think there’s a rise in greenhouse gasses which unequivocally warm the (lower) atmosphere but at the same time you say that doesn’t change the average state of the lower atmosphere. I don’t think that makes much sense, personally. Maybe it does to you.
Victor the Troll,
You misrepresent Spencer Weart who writes of the present knowledge of the modern temperature trend:-
just as you misrepresent Fyfe et al (2016) ‘Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown’ who say, for instance:-
You are spouting nonsense, the same old nonsense you you’ve spouted here for almost a decade now. And we here explain why it is nonsense time and time again. Welcome to groundhog day!!.
Victor, almost all of the warming has occured since 1975. It’s increadable that we’ve seen most of the 1.1 degrees Celcius in such a short time. Surely the trend is not your friend!
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ContentWOC/images/globaltemp/global_gis_2022_chart.png
Victor
You are phantacizing in terms of what you read or get special orders for from your apparently secteric secret and commercial litterature with no way to think and to check up for yourself on own behalf and make up your own individual mind independently from your collective mission..
That is dangerous and unhealthy. Suddenly, they found themselves in communal napkins with bitty over their heads and long boots on march to Stalingrad for an easy military operation.
Ot stored into the transport planes without windows on their way to Vietnam.
And then it is too late.
That story repeats now again. They lived peacefully and scientifically and sceptically and had their own opinions also, in the rural sub- urban Siberia hoping for a better life and then find themselves suddenly packed together airtight in the train on their way to Costa and to Donbas for a military defence exercise against the ridiculous, sinful alians narcotics and Nazi Germans in Kiev,….
and then it is too late.
( SIC!)
Haven`t you ever learnt how to read also forbidden litterature and turn on also remote foreign radio stations to check up whether the earth is round or not, at least and secretly at own risk and at night?
Why allways and only in that communist cell and closed peoples republic and professional thinktank?
Because it`s being in Michigan labeled Heartland and having a stainless steel Thinktank called CATO does not make any difference at all.
In the SSSR the same was labeled Soviett science academy and situated in Ljeningrad and in Sverdlovsk.
@carbomantasus
a crash course on surface budgets is available here
https://denning.atmos.colostate.edu/ats761/Lectures/04.SurfaceEnergyBudget.pdf
Most pertinent info is on pages 2 and 3.
A simple characterization of real climates can be depicted by the ratio of H and LE. A factor 10:1 resembling deserts. i.e. 10 units of H to 1 unit of LE.
Conversely, a climate with LE exceeding H is a moist regime. In the extreme case 1 unit of H to 10 units of LE is likely tropical ocean.
The governing principle is the evaporative fraction of surface flux.
Given a latitude and the annual evaporative fraction one can envisage the climate fairly precisely.
To keep things simple the national geographic kids pages illustrates some history of Central Asia.
https://kids.nationalgeographic.com/geography/countries/article/afghanistan
The region currently known as afghanistan once supported an ecosystem consisting of bears and wolves. Can you imagine? Apparently a more temperate climate historically. The evaporative fraction must have been higher compared to today. Sustained evaporative flux requires a diverse and functional ecosystem, not least in the soils.
That wealth is tied to soil health and the sustained evaporative flux is not a coincidence. Destroy the soils, the climate must deteriorate. Deterioration meaning a change for which the residents are not ideally adapted. The history of Central Asia extends back up to 7 or 8 millenia. Before that, pre-history.
I once visited the city known by the locals as Benaras. The residents there claim that it is the longest continuously occupied settlement known to man at about 5000 years. I do not doubt them – it is an astonishing feat – I suspect the sustainability is achieved by the practically endless moderation of climates by the rich Gangetic plain. This plain must be managed sustainably as a first priority. You can mess it up pretty quickly with a fossil fueled machine and chemical biocides.
@JCM says: –
-” A simple characterization of real climates can be depicted by the ratio of H and LE. A factor 10:1 resembling deserts. i.e. 10 units of H to 1 unit of LE.
– Conversely, a climate with LE exceeding H is a moist regime. In the extreme case 1 unit of H to 10 units of LE is likely tropical ocean.
– The governing principle is the evaporative fraction of surface flux.
– Given a latitude and the annual evaporative fraction one can envisage the climate fairly precisely. ”
ms: — In the NOAA PSL you can have a look at all latitudes & regions of the world in a wide variety of datasets for a wide variety of parameters and print out graphics.
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/getpage/
https://psl.noaa.gov/data/atmoswrit/timeseries/
In the available period 1979-2022, evaporation in Afghanistan ( Lat: 29.5234 to 37.1422 Lon: 60 to 69.375 ) decreased by ~4.15W/m².
This corresponds to -53.5L/m² less evaporation during the last 43 years. Precipitation is also declining over there -37mm/43y. A typical dry gets drier region. Different datasets can show different values.
On a global level, I have already posted a GEB several times, which shows the climate development of the ~ last 2 decades or the current to future energy balance (~ 2023-2026).
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/geb_2000-2020finish.png?w=1024
Here you can see that LE and H have each decreased ~ -1% (-0.86W/m²) and increased ~ +1% (+0.17W/m²) within 20 years. But it could be also e.g. -0.96W/m² and +0.27W/m², since the CERES data only suggest a value for ( LE + H ) of -0.69W/m². — I claim that we see a clear trend towards desert.
Any thoughts???
PS. — You can also find the CERES values I use + updated cloud data here:
https://ceres.larc.nasa.gov/documents/STM/2022-10/Loeb_contributed_presentation.pdf
Greetings Macias,
from your GEB, using the 2020 values the surface terms are as follows:
Net SW 164.85
LW up 400.2
LW down 340.84
Turbulent flux H 18.57
Turbulent flux LE 85.54
Assuming no net storage in the surface:
Net SW + Net LW = H + LE
164.85 – 400.2 + 340.84 = 18.57 + 85.54
105.48 = 104.11 + [1.37]
So we do need a storage term in the surface.
Net SW + Net LW = H + LE + ΔStorage
The radiation budget at the surface is higher than the turbulent flux. There is a net gain into the surface of 1.37.
In a balanced surface scheme, an increasing radiation budget should result in an equal increase of turbulent flux.
Considering this 1.37 about matches the TOA imbalance, all Δ storage of energy is occurring within the land and ocean according to your data.
I am still puzzled by this. Maybe there is a simple explanation.
I would have expected to see not all TOA imbalance attributed to surface storage – rather I would expect that at least some proportion the total system Δ storage be attributed to the free troposphere. I am assuming the boundary layer process is tightly bound to the surface budget.
If this isn’t the case, i.e. that all Δ storage is expected to be in the surface budget, I’m interested to hear so I can increase my knowledge.
As you have noted, the earth energy imbalance appears to be at minimum during el nino, when ocean is giving some of this storage away.
I have yet to see an energy budget diagram depicting an anomalous atmosphere storage. i.e. the scenario of surface storage representing < 100% of TOA imbalance.
I think your data actually depicts the surface storage in excess of TOA imbalance by a small margin (0.01).
My thinking is that the evaporative fraction of surface flux can be related to the cloud fraction and corresponding radiation budget.
There is some discussion of evaporative fraction in the following paper:
Long-term relative decline in evapotranspiration with increasing runoff on fractional land surfaces
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/3805/2021/
"This study resulted in several findings; for example, the evaporative fraction (EF) – the ratio of latent heat flux to available surface energy – exhibited a relatively decreasing trend on fractional land surfaces. In particular, the decrease in EF was accompanied by an increase in long-term runoff as assessed by precipitation (P) minus ET, accounting for 27.06 % of the global land areas."
To me, this suggests a biophysical change to the system such as a net reduction of soil moisture (increased runoff) and/or vegetation effects.
"The decreasing trend in the EF varied from 0 to 0.05 per decade and was prevalent in several land areas (Fig. 4a), except in the most humid areas of tropical rainforest (e.g., the Amazon, West Africa, New Guinea Island, and Southeast Asia) and dense agricultural irrigation areas, including central North America and the Punjab region in India (Fig. S14)."
thanks
@JCM says: – ” all Δ energy storage occurs within land and ocean according to your data.
I’m still amazed at that. Maybe there is a simple explanation.
I would have expected that not all of the TOA imbalance would be attributed to surface storage – rather, I would expect that at least some of the total Δ storage of the system would be attributed to the free troposphere.
ms: — Only ~1% of the EEI is stored in the atmosphere. This is due to their pitifully low heat capacity compared to ocean, land & ice.
https://gcos.wmo.int/index.php/en/news/where-does-heat-go
If you subtract all energy fluxes that are absorbed in the atmosphere from outgoing fluxes in my GEB – a difference of 0.01W/m² remains.
240.47 + 340.84 -76.99 – 400.2 – 18.57 -85.54 = 0.01
JCM: – ” My thinking is that the evaporative fraction of surface flux can be related to the cloud fraction and corresponding radiation budget. ”
ms: — Only a very small part of the total evaporation/year ( ~ 500,000 km³ ) returns to the surface through condensation / re-sublimation even without clouds. Therefore 1 Gt (1 km³) evaporation produces ~ 1 Gt clouds ~ 1 GT precipitation.
Due to the loss of evaporative landscapes, we have lost at least 6000Gt of clouds, more like 12000Gt, since 1750 alone.
The loss in LE since 2000 of 0.86W/m² alone corresponds to approx. 5650km³ and arises mostly in the Pacific. In El Nino phases, significantly more water is evaporated and clouds are produced than in La Ninas, in which large amounts of short-wave light are stored much deeper in the ocean.
A long-term trend ensures more La Ninas with high EEI in the future.
The loss in the water reservoirs over the land areas is ~ 100km³/y and here, too, the spreading deserts have an effect in decreasing RH and evaporation.
JCM says: – “As you have noted, the earth energy imbalance appears to be at minimum during el nino, when ocean is giving some of this storage away.
ms: — It will be very difficult for the IPCC to explain why this minimum of imbalance at El Niños is always accompanied by an increasing relative & (specific) air humidity.
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/a2.png
Isn’t H2O the strongest greenhouse gas of all???
Do you have an explanation for a small imbalance at peak of H2O?
@ms,
I would like to respond also to your comment on my post of March 30 (I am new here and do not see an option how to reply to this older comment directly).
I exploit the circumstance that you touch the same topics – the role of latent heat flux and the intensity of water cycle in climate regulation.
macias shurly says
1 Apr 2023 at 11:43 AM
@Tomáš Kalisz says: –
.” We emphasize that our goal here is not to obtain an accurate
estimate of global transpirational cooling, but to present plausible arguments showing that it can be large.
Therefore, by construction, global
climate models cannot provide any independent information about the climatic effect of evapotranspirational cooling ”
ms: — Hello Tomáš Kalisz – I am a biologist and artist and I looked at your graphic about heat wave mitigation / global water cycle restoration. dr Gavin Schmidt is hard to reach when it comes to evapotranspiration and ecology. I’ve been posting on more or less the same topic for many months and it’s hard to have fact-based communication. Broad sections of the audience here are convinced that water cycles should only be seen as feedback on higher GHG emissions. A theory according to which man has actively interfered with the water cycle for thousands of years and actively impeded evaporation – they reject.
So don’t let that unsettle you. Of course, the water cycle plays the primary role in regulating the Earth’s temperature. According to the IPCC, on agricultural and forestry areas and urban land areas land use change has decreased evaporation extensively on 72% (94 million km²) of the ice-free land area (130 million km²).
BOX | BREAKDOWN OF THE GLOBAL, ICE-FREE LAND SURFACE (130 MILLION KM2)
72% of land directly affected by human use:
–
37% of pastures, of which 16% are used savannahs and shrublands, 19% extensive pastures and 2% intensive pastures (since 1961, the number of people living in areas affected by desertification almost tripled).
22% of forests, of which 20% are managed for timber and other uses and 2% are planted
12% of cropland, of which 10% are non-irrigated and 2% irrigated (since 1961, the use of fertilisers increased by nearly ninefold and the use of irrigation water doubled.
1% of settlements and infrastructure
28% of unused land:
–
9% of intact or primary forests
7% of unforested ecosystems, including grasslands and wetlands (since 1970, wetland areas have declined by 30%).
12% of barren wilderness, rocks, etc.
Thank goodness the IPCC at least recognized in 2021 AR6 that irrigation has a cooling radiative forcing, even if IMHO the value is far too low and cooling through the albedo change of land use change is a very questionable matter in particular.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg/450px-Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg.png
Since the loss of evaporative landscapes cannot be denied (nor can the GHE of CO2) a value for this loss is missing in the 200 times peer reviewed graphic (@ Dan).
The following graphic is the combination of a GEB model with the observation values CERES 2000-2020, which also quantitatively captures the loss of evaporation and the 20-year development of the global climate. Less evaporation (-0,86W/m²) —> less cloud albedo (~ -0,8W/m²) are the main driver of the increased energy imbalance.
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2023/03/geb_2000-2020finish.png?w=1024
I also really like the project of conquering/populating the desert with solar cells.
However, at the moment it seems that the production of electricity via mirror power plants and concentrated solar radiation in combination with a steam turbine has better efficiency, since the electricity production can be sustained at night by thermal storage.
But you probably know that cooled PV modules show an improved power production with every °C of cooling (~0.5%/°C). A PV module that is cooled down from 95°C to 35°C, for example, produces ~ 30% more energy and is certainly more durable. I myself develop prototypes in the field of *water-cooled LED light and PV-T modules with ~85% efficiency”. If you are interested – just contact me.
Mirror power plants are very expensive in terms of production costs – which not every desert state can afford. PV systems in the desert require significantly less effort, time and capital.
If I understand your graphic correctly, you want to evaporate water with hot solar cells ????
(TK) My comment amendment thereon is as follows:
I am a physical and organic chemist by my education and a technologist and patent engineer in several chemistry-related industry branches by my career. Being since 2011 in organic semiconductor industry and dealing also with materials for organic solar cells, I strived to grasp in which extent might photovoltaics (and organic photovoltaic as a part thereof) contribute to a switch of electricity production from non-renewable sources to renewable ones.
Although my primary focus is on electrochemical technologies for a cheap long-term electricity storage that might make electricity production from intermittent renewable sources such as wind and sun reliable and still cheap enough to be economically competitive with fossil fuels, see e.g.
https://orgpad.com/s/5BfLP-cxj-7 ,
I see as potentially important also the questions pertaining to economy and possible environmental consequences of massive renewable source exploitation.
As you may take from the link https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/23/1/JHM-D-20-0266.1.xml (also saved in the orgpage https://orgpad.com/s/VhvfDd5uRIP you looked at), some models predict that making a hot desert even hotter by lot of waste sensible heat released from classical solar panels should paradoxically bring more precipitation thereto.
This prediction is exactly opposite to the assumptions of the biotic pump hypothesis assuming that for bringing moisture from the ocean to the interior of continents, an intensive small water cycle enabled by forests and wetlands should be beneficial.
The idea behing my proposal is testing both hypotheses practically, on urban islands as a model of a desert, by installing either lot of classical solar panels, or (togerther with a necessary infrastructure for rain catching and storage) “2.0” solar panels cooled by water transpiration. A statistical evaluation of both alternatives could show if rather the first or the second alternative brings more precipitation into hot cities and makes the conditions therein more livable during the hot summer seasons.
The results migh then serve as a testing benchmark for the respective microclimate models.
Finally, the results of such comparisons could be perhaps exploited also for testing the available global climate models.
I hope that although Dr. Gavin Schmidt may not become impressed, someone else from the climate modelling community might perhaps still perceive this idea as worth of an attention.
@ tomas Kalisz
Several interesting things.
Solar mirrors can be made rather cheaply by aluminium plate and even aluminium foil and cheapest straw or bamboo for rigidity. I have seen it suggested and even demonstrated for boiling teawqater and frying egs without fire or electricity. And for heat storage, molten salt where sodium sulphate hydrate is suggested with a high phase transcision entrophy that can also worh further with a heat pump.
Promising, but please, resign on higth consumption waste and brutality of the product then, which is just as important.
We shall try it tomorrow with barbecue at the shore, the art of heating and make piquenique with leat possible firewood smoke and waste., which is quite an art. If people only could train on that.
Why not a smooth, large wheeled local diligence taxi, , why porsche and BMW and Tesla at those brutal accelerations and speeds?
Square kilometers of photovoltaic…. what about dustbowls and birrshit? Common windows must be cleaned quite often and that is expensive.
I am expert on microclimate as a passionate sea bather at 60 deg north.
Microclimate is even more important for comfortable living further north. We have managed ripe tomatoes and wine without greenhouse glass or plastic in the sunny wall. By good design and needlewood trees that break the wind even breaks the snowfall and make their own natural microclimate, you can acheive maybe 2 deg warmer than the average climate by such rather traditional means.
What the aspirands here are not yet aware of is that the earth is round and that solid vegetation and evaporation rather warms the situation at night and in the winter.
It is shadowy cool under a large tree in the summer at noon, but rather pleasant warm in the nights and in the winter.. It breaks the storm and the winds so you will not loose heat by wind and storm convection. That rules also for houses.
The ground thaws first in spring under the proper trees. Sensitive animals rest and go to sleep in the bushes and under the trees. Birds sit warm in the trees in the winter. And there they also find the first grass in spring. Birdshit especially there makes warm fruitgardens under the old trees.
There is obviously a special “greenhouse” for life in the woods. Thus in order to fight greenhouse effects, and to cool the earth, get all the bushes and trees away first .
@carbomontanus
Thank you very much for your commment!
You have very good point in that the terrestrial vegetation may have both the cooling as well as the warming effect on the microclimate. I believe that its effect could be, as a rule of thumb, characterized the way that vegetation makes the microclimate milder, with less extremes in comparison with the same area unplanted.
I think that in some extent, the influence of the vegetation cover can be mimicked by irrigation of the bare land. Of course, there are limitations, because mere change in production of latent and sensible heat cannot mimics all processes taking place in the soil, e.g. biodegradation of dead “biomass” that may likely also contribute to the pleasant microclimate of the forests and bushes you mention.
The idea behind the proposed “urban heat island mitigation” experiment is exploiting the assumed analogy (between urban heat islands and deserts) as a test bed for existing climate models.
Let me assume that the available urban microclimate models correctly predict the effects of massive solar cell installation in cities. Then – if global climate models are built on the same principles – such a good fit (between the observed results on one hand and microclimate model predictions on the other hand) could be a hint that predictions of the global climate models, as regards the effects of various human activities that perturb the complex system of the global water cycle and thus may perhaps influence also the global climate, might be also reliable.
Production of additional sensible heat (e.g. by albedo changes) or change of the ratio between latent and sensible heat (e.g. by irrigation, or by replacement of the “classical” solar cells with solar cells immersed by water / cooled by water vapour transpiration) may serve as examples of such human-caused “perturbations” to the global water cycle or “interferences” therewith.
As an outsider, I lack a solid knowledge base in this respect. Therefore, I propose that my public orgpage “Discussion forum: Heat wave mitigation in urban environment, solar energy exploitation and global water cycle restoration”, easily accessible under following link
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
could serve as a platform for sharing the respective knowledge.
The link gives everybody the right for adding any suitable content – comments, documents, videos, links to other websites etc. Hereby, you are invited to participate.
I think that OrgPad might be the suitable platform because it enables, by structuring the content without limitations by a given format, visualize complex relationships without losing an overview of the big picture.
Greetings @Tomáš Kalisz
I will consolidate a few items of interest to me:
I am a land steward who wishes to offer climate stabilizing perspectives in addition to efforts to reduce trace gas emission. In this forum my goal is to frame the concepts of hydrology and ecosystem effects in terms of interest to the climatological community.
These concepts discussed, such as minimizing hydrological and temperature extremes, are resisted for unknown reasons here – perhaps it is for computational simplification. The definitions proposed by radiation theorists and experimental computationalists have somehow now permeated into and displaced definitions and teaching of environment, climates, & change.
The human related factors proposed by those who reduce their perspective of climates to computational capability and radiometer observation appear to include: Surface albedo, aerosol, ozone, and trace gas emission. Everything else, therefore, such as real climates, real environments, and change is deemed a feedback to such effects.
Alternative themes centre around overall drying of the continents, directly by human intervention, in addition to feedback effects from trace gas, with particular rapid pace over the most recent centuries.
The observations related to highly degraded ecosystems and watersheds include, but are not limited to: hydrological extremes such as increasing flood and drought extremes, and increasing temperature extremes.
These observations of climate changes appear to be confused with the equally important notion of “global warming”. The result is that local community decision makers have minimal understanding of the local factors of risk for their residents, and they have no sense of accountability when things go wrong.
@macias has recently shared the following work by Liu & co which depicts a clear reduction oceanic moisture flows to continents in Figure 5. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-020-05451-8
Nobre & co. have noted that additional heat over land “can block oceanic” moisture transport. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844022024616
Wang & co. highlight an overall reduction of evaporative fraction over continents.
https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/3805/2021/
Makarieva & co. notes a hysteresis whereupon the shift to a dry regime is self-reinforcing /resistent and can therefore cause some confusion about the benefits of ecological restoration.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/gcb.16644
In various works Huyrna and Pokorny highlight the far greater impacts of ecohydrology working in addition to albedo and sinks/sources of Co2.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-role-of-water-and-vegetation-in-the-of-solar-a-Huryna-Pokorn%C3%BD/15f3d6ee13d35aaeb1867b781a19f29fec509048
The factors of reduced oceanic moisture flows over continents + reduced evaporative fraction is evidently a compounding effect. The drying continents directly by the hands of humanity with increasing temperature and hydrological extremes has far reaching consequences for changing climates. The common view here is that increasing continental “heat” should increase rising air currents and therefore promote “sea breezes” and return flows. But it seems there must be more going on.
I look forward to hearing more of your novel perspectives.
@JCM “overall drying of the continents,”
Been reading your commentary on and off, thank you.
I am assuming however that this overall drying is directly and cumulatively caused by human activity, being intervention in the destruction/change in the vegetation state of global ecosystems including over plains, grasslands, savanna and rain-forests etc over millennia and extremely rapidly during the last ~200 years and still increasing in extent.
Is this your view, or do ahve some additional insights explanations. Thanks
@Ned Kelly,
the themes wide scale continental desiccation and profound ecosystem change, directly by human activity, is the crux of the argument.
Always consider that there is 10x the ecological activity, biomass, and hydrogeological process occurring below the terrestrial surface compared to what’s visible above. I look to the soil first and foremost – where change is unobservable directly by radiometer.
It should be uncontroversial that such direct impacts have consequences to local and regional climate observables – such as temperature and hydrological extremes, and the depth and duration of such events. This, irrespective of trace gas emission.
But, such effect are thought of as second order importance. Dare I say, hydrological stabilization is deemed an “adaptation’ to climate change? What a funny way to think about things.
On the controversial side of things, unnaturally limiting the duration, extent, and intensity of latent fluxes and/or condensation processes may have broader impacts for climates more generally.
Even in a preindustrial atmosphere with unperturbed trace gas concentration, such changes would impact upon hydrodynamic balancing processes.
The fluid mass flux has always been coupled to net solar and transmitted radiative flux, particularly in the turbulent layer.
Unnaturally limiting the hydrodynamic freedom surely has impacts.
The pressure is only increasing today with the proliferation of trace gas emission. A double whammy for climates, where the feedback regime has been perturbed in addition to IR atmospheric optics.
Tomáš Kalisz says: – ” wind and sun reliable and still cheap enough to be economically competitive with fossil fuels … pertaining to economy and possible environmental consequences of massive renewable source exploitation. ”
ms: — The overall efficiency of a typical wind turbine is currently around 50% – that of PV only 20-25% if it is not cooled in summer with the rising temperatures – even less.
However, the energy efficiency of PV modules can be tripled by using a water-cooled absorber and using the heat for heating and hot water.
Solar panels cooled by water transpiration will need a lot of water, that is better transpired by vegetation or crop, thereby absorbing CO2.
My concept to cool down cities is to use the summer heat to heat in the winter. And vice versa, using the cold of winter for cooling in summer. Large seasonal heat and ice storage in combination with heat pumps also have space underground and can possibly be combined with pumped storage or compressed air storage and serve as a protection against drought and flooding.
Dear Macias Shurly,
I would like to comment on your idea
“My concept to cool down cities is to use the summer heat to heat in the winter. And vice versa, using the cold of winter for cooling in summer. Large seasonal heat and ice storage in combination with heat pumps also have space underground and can possibly be combined with pumped storage or compressed air storage and serve as a protection against drought and flooding.”
Basically, there is a significant overlap between you and me in the aspect that providing ctities with an infrastructure for collecting and re-use of precipitation could be beneficial, despite of costs.
One of the goals of the proposed “Urban heat wave mitigation project” is to prove in which extent the amount of such colected precipitation water could be sufficient for my idea of evaporatively cooled photovoltaics as a means for making hot summers days in cities more livable for inhabitants.
Another goal is testing whether or not a massive installation of classical solar panels producing lot of additional sensible heat may indeed bring more precipitation in the urban heat islands – as could be expected by analogy to a prediction made for Arabian Peninsula: https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/hydr/23/1/JHM-D-20-0266.1.xml by WRF model.
@ Tomáš Kalisz says: –
“…, despite of costs.
One of the goals of the proposed “Urban heat wave mitigation project” is to prove in which extent the amount of such colected precipitation water could be sufficient for my idea of evaporatively cooled photovoltaics…”
ms: — There are no water retention costs. It’s a good deal that you can easily invest in – or not. I pay for 1m³ of tap water > 2$. If I have a roof area of 100m² and an average annual rainfall of 1000mm, $200 for a rain barrel/cistern with a few meters of pipe is amortized after a year. If the installation lasts 30 years I will have saved at least $5800 if I use the rainwater in the garden and toilet/washing machine etc.
I don’t think your evaporative water-cooled PV modules are very efficient, because the thermal energy is not harvested and used, but escapes into the atmosphere as water vapor. I imagine your modules so that their surface is sprayed with collected (rain) water at short intervals on hot days.
The cooling corresponds to the evaporated amount of water (0.68KWh/L).
An average PV module with 1m² produces approx. 200Wp at a module temperature of 35°C and incident solar radiation of 1000W/m² – let’s say on a long, cloudless summer day an energy yield of 2KWh and therefore also 8KWh of heat. So on a hot day you may need 12 L of water / m² of PV surface. I don’t think that’s very sustainable idea at a time when water is becoming scarcer in many places speacially in heat waves.
Drops on the pane of glass can focus the light and selectively disrupt the power production of the solar cells like a small shadow.
If the PV system is mounted on roofs, the inhabitants hardly feel this evaporation cold and a park with a fountain, which is watered with half the amount of water / m² in the early morning hours, has much more pleasant cooling effects, shade and quality of life for the city dwellers.
In comparison, a water-cooled PV module with absorber and heat exchanger (& without water consumption) is ~3-4 times more energy efficient, since you can save a lot of electricity, oil & gas with the harvested 8KWh of heat in the bathroom, kitchen, washing machine, dishwasher – with large water tanks and the right heat pump, this also works for heating in winter.
I hope you don’t get this wrong and enjoy arguing about the measures we need to implement in cities to reconcile heat waves, climate change and the energy transition. Ultimately, capitalism will also be a measure of how much urban cooling, energy production and adaptation to climate change is possible for one $
I also don’t think a reliable increase in precipitation coming from the sea in a coastal region through large-scale PV is very promising.
@ macias and Tomáš
“evaporated amount of water”
In addition to the mass flux and associated fluid heat transport – you will have the added latent heat of vaporization along for the ride.
For increased efficiency, consider the equally important process of condensation in any scheme.
Just as Turkey is watered using vapor flows off the Carpathian uplands 1000km upstream, all continental watering must have a condensation / precipitation trigger.
Else, the vapor flies right by.
Such triggers reduce the duration of vaporized molecules in atmosphere. They also produce synergies in the hydrological regime which extend across vast regions.
Plumes of condensed matter surfaces.
Consider enhancing condensation triggers, such that abundant fungi and bacteria species are provided to hop on board vapor streams to make things happen. When available, they travel well in fluid dynamic atmosphere. In sufficient abundance, they provide a hygroscopic trigger.
While it is not very glamorous, I suspect the atmosphere is starving for the stuff. Restore the deficits and ‘seed’ the water cycle by incorporating aspects of natural ecology.
@ JCM
That argument of “surface budget” relasted to “H + LE” scaled from 1:10 to 10:1 can hardly be relevant fruitful and valid for the discussion of climate,…… and the fameous wealth of nations and bio- productivity as long as a series of further parameters and realities are ignored. Parameters and realities that are basic in soil science and especially in the FAO litterature and learnings that I have seen.
So why suddenly hide, ignore or forget all that?
I am getting suspiscious.
And there is nothing that I have not yet understood or never learnt, or forgotten about all that.
I first suggested and insinuated “Hide the decline” where the very winter and the very nights are hidden for demagogic political progressive sales reasons.
Then the quetrion whether the earth is cylindric, Mercators projection, or conical in cone- projections of the truth namely in order to make it flat again in the books and on the screens.. That is also rather 50:50 but, why hide the decline? The shortest way to China is not via Gibraltar Suez and the Malacca strait.
And whether the earth is a water cooled,… or a water warmed planet. Beware of launching your sales as holism there with waterbarrels like someone else has done..
Then remark the holism of the worlds flora, especially the trees. We go for trees don`t we? There are also weeds and trees underwater.
The tropical trees are broadleaved and green all the time. The tempered zone trees are broadleavet with leavefall in wither There are even broadleaved with leavefall in the dry summers to avoid too much “evapotranspiration”. and stay wealthy.
And then the very Taiga, the coniferaceae and evergreen needlewoods.
What can it tell us? the worlds largest climatic and forested land area.
Then the Cactaceae, who seem to need no rain at all and seem to live from Claussius Clappeyron in the air only rather at windstill withouit turbulent boundary layer streams of air.
And where have you got your summer and winter isoterms in your climatic theory?
And in addition, only the slogan “Soil health”. What about the pH and the reserves of acessible mineral plant nutricians such as Potassium Nitrate Phosphate Sulphate Magnesium Calsium Copper Zink Selenium Vanadium Litium and Boron?
Where is Justus von Liebig and Gay Lussac? were they not PENSUM in public school?
Where is Norman Borlaug and the green revolution? Is there only Rudolf Steiner who cheat and buy their manure from those industrial peasants who better can afford NPK with Dolomite powder and ammonium nitrate and diesel for their machineries?
Where are your thoughts and explainations about eventual volcanic ash sediments, fossile and weathering marine clays, and fossile seashells and corallinales worldwide?
Only that “Evapotranspiration”
Stalin and Lysenko, 2 flat earthers, also performed by such monocausal, progressive brand new terms in Ukraina and in Siberia to grow oranges and wines like they had tasted it in Krjeml from southernmost Kryim.
This has become evasive and frivolous. Far too many obviously smart people squander their gifts on antagonistic argumentation. It is only deepening disunity, which is opposite to my goals.
Right.
JCM
You are becoming evasive and frivolous here and squander your eventual gifts on antagonistic argument.
The Sahel belt is greening in our days.
The main world desert and arid land stretching from China through central Asia via the middle east over to Africa and out to Marocco has been taken serious by NASA and by the Google Earth and Google maps..
Las Vegas Lake Mead and southern California however US american are irrelevant in comparision, only local provincial details that are being cherry- picked by flat earthers blind believers, and desert walkers. for their worshipful antagonistic argumentation deepening disunity.
I repeat. ….!
I tend to believe that you hardly have got autentic oasis- culture anymore in the USA whereas it exists all the way from China to Marocco as can be found and focused in by Google maps.
And in the same same way, artificial microclimate against chill and uncertain percipitation for the cultivation of rather termophile crops has existed for 6000 years at least all the way from Mt.Ararat via central and eastern Europe to Flåmsdalen in Sogn and further to to Gardar in Austerbygd Grønland.
Do not teach the chineese and the japs how to heat , how to piss, and how to irrigate by critical resources.
Do not try and teach the aborgineans in China or in Sogn how to cultivate their very steep and scarce ackers on both sides in a sustainable way. Because, they could allready read and write for the last 5000 years.
Mao tsedong tried that.
Q. How shall we dissolve the contradiction in the People?. .
Answer: The agriculture must be industrialized!
In that way, Mao deleted the very chineese Peasant wisdom by a pen- stroke , and set Guinness world record of hunger cathastrophy…
Which is typical Besserwisserei “Know-it-all” from the progressive verbal chat faculty of Bejing with its deputees in the provinces worldwide. , Where the earth is as flat as a military training camp within barbed wires, , where also matter is dia- lectic, and further artificial planting and irrigation of the same to cool down the situation.
Examples:
Q How to doubble Chinas rice production?
Answer: Plant the rice twice as tight.
Q: How to fill up the Colorado river and lake mead? The Aral Sea? ?
Answer: By Evapo- transpiration.
Next question: What the Hell are they fighting for?
Answer:L The Donbas and Dnipro river and cernozem – resources Tallgrass semi arid steppe.
Stalin and Lysenko, two fameous pioneers and flat earthers, managed to make guiness world record hunger cathastrophy even there.
(Evasive and frivolous, he wrote.)
Carbomontanus is a waste of time and space.
Don’t feed the trolls, ignore them.
I hope you share you info ideas on other venues. Or perhaps link with your knowledgeable coworkers as a team and start a substack or something similar. Even Twitter might be useful. The reach here is minuscule to almost non-existent. Nowadays it is more like an old people’s club talking in circles.
@ JCM
So the Marxist leninist also told me and about me as I could not quite understand, and asked them just a few critical analytical questions.
Dear Group
“….on climate topics (no joke)”
Climate topics may be both funny (smile up) and tragic (smile down)
Climate topics being emosionally neutral,….I cannot believe it.
It is more a problem, I believe, of hardly any consensus or agreement of what it is about.
Peoples backgrounds, upbringings , and learnings of what it is about may be very different and quite often even categorically colliding.
Wherefore due manners are important at civilized and academic meetings and discussions.
If one is damned mad, one is only permitted to say it. Wherefore there is ” CORNIA DEPOSITVRVS ” before being allowed into the higher studies.
I go for Köppens climate definitions, and for Le quattro stagioni, in Köppens system.
Flora and lack of the same and eventual glaciers, cryosphere they call it, (A lot of that in California now.) And when spring and autumn comes, tell a lot about it. and whether that may be changing over the years..
By theese elementary things, one does not have to believe in the experts anymore Zero Celsius is better. . NVLLIVS IN VERBVM
V: During the warming period from the beginning of the 20th century through ca. 1940, CO2 levels were not high enough to matter all that much
BPL: It’s the increase that matters. You’re confusing the value of a variable with the first time derivative of that variable. A 10% increase in CO2 has the same effect on temperature whether it’s going from 200 to 220 or 300 to 330.
BPL. that’s an overly broad generalization.
And it’s a perfect example of what I keep telling you… you are responding to a nonsensical statement, and creating the illusion of a scientific discussion, and now also descending to the troll’s level of sloppy thinking and language.
Sorry, folks, but your co-dependency is not helping the cause of educating the public on how science actually works.
Um, actually, Barton is correct. Forcing follows log[CO2], and logs scale with factors, not linearly. A reasonable person would apologize at this point.
Are you saying that this is true no matter the characteristics of the system being acted upon?
Would it be true going from 10 to 11, or 2,000 to 2,200? I don’t think so.
Again, my point. You let the troll frame the discussion, responding to the same nonsense over and over in slightly different forms. What’s that saying about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?
Victor achieves his goal; he is in control. What is your goal? What are you teaching to the hypothetical newbie reader?
A reasonable person would answer that.
In my view Victor is deluded and repetitive and probably won’t ever be convinced he’s wrong, but a newbie probably gets something out of the replies to Victors comments. I know a bit more than the average person about the climate issue, but I’ve often got something out of replies to Victors comments. There’s always more to learn. Technical detail is important, and little things can be quite revealing. It also helps conform that my own understanding and intuitions are correct.
z: Would it be true going from 10 to 11, or 2,000 to 2,200? I don’t think so.
BPL: The log approximation is held to be valid from approximately 1 to 1,440 ppmv.
BPL, I forget the numbers but for a very low CO2, there would be no water vapor in the atmosphere, and GMST would be very cold. So how would GMST change at the same rate going from 10 to 11 as going from 300 to 330? It’s a physically different system.
@ Gavin Schmidt & al
I just saw on the net that they are shuffeling 17 meters 700 inches of snow uphill in “Mammoth valley” caifornia.
Las Vegas, Hollywood, Southern California , Los Angeles and Sacramento will not be in charge anymore. This changes and probably settles everything, and washes it out. .
Just think of when all that will have to rush out due to zero celsius that is coming. quite soon now. ..
Maybe even the US Citizens will, learn to think in terms of Zero Celsius then, which is quite an eyemark and reference to the climate.
http://www.Frühlingsrauschen, Chr Sinding On youtube also.
Pielke says at https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/trends-in-the-proportion-of-major that AR6 is wrong about tropical cyclones.
Yawn!
Heh, I was hoping for a rebuttal or analysis, but naturally I can’t demand that from anyone. Thanks!
Autumn,
I’m not sure why you feel the grand works of Pielke the Younger are worth examining. Is there anything in particular that draws you to thinking them important? His criticisms of the IPCC are pretty strong given he has a very very minor point to make, and then not in any detail with added bizarre interpretations. I see it all in terms of this webpage, obviously a vehicle for Pielke the Younger’s message rather than a genuine bash at the IPCC.
Like it or not Pielke does make some fair points which if flawed should be addressed and shot down. Pretending they aren’t relevant by responding “Yawn” doesn’t make it so.
Autumn, you would have to explain what the relevance is.
“Someone said something on them internets” doesn’t qualify, by itself, as necessarily worthy of discussion.
You might get a response if you would be more forthcoming.
Geoff Miell, thanks for that. I watched the graphic. Wow. But without watching the whole thing, is there an estimated total amount somewhere I wonder? If we are currently adding 100 million barrels a day . I guess that link I originally posted about it is it.
“But using the estimates above, if we’ve used somewhere between 1.1 trillion and 1.5 trillion barrels of oil since the beginning of time…”. 2019 https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Much-Crude-Oil-Has-The-World-Really-Consumed.html
So if about half has ended up in the atmosphere, and more will in the future with absorption overload in the oceans and vegetation, to date is that roughly 550 to 75o trillion barrels of burned oil (carbon) floating around in the sky? On an earth with a surface livable area comparable in size to the skin on an apple? My math sucks so I wonder if I’m missing something.
Man, I got trillion mixed up with billion again. It’s been one of those lives.
RonR
If you are a US citizen, you may be bad off with millions billions and trillons in addition to that incredibly silly length unit by 8 irrational numbers down in the muds of the river Thames at Greenwhich. And just think of gallons and pounds and barrels.
Only the paint of beer is reliable..
Pythagoreanism you see, pythagoreanism , i repeat… and lacks of the same over there in the states.
But, in italian. by the Billiarde…….
Uno Deca Cento Mille, Million Milliard Billion Billiard Trillion Trilliard and so on.
Could it be easier?
and the US National depts could come in order.
Cento dinare…… cento cinquante, mille lire, millione milliarde….. they learn it.
Ron R.: – “But without watching the whole thing, is there an estimated total amount somewhere I wonder?”
Some examples I see:
1. YouTube video animation titled Time-lapse history of global CO2 emissions by humans 1751-2008, published 27 Sep 2013, duration 0:01:10. This version now includes emissions data from 1751-2008, made available in 2011 by the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, CDIAC, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The animation indicates the total annual CO₂ emissions (in million tonnes) for each year, from 1751-2008.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAhZ1fA1AJs
2. YouTube video titled A Brief History of CO2 Emissions, published 13 Sep 2017 by Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, duration 0:08:16. Together with the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), the Urban Complexity Lab of the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam (FHP) developed an animated short movie that visualizes the carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions of the past – and the possible future. In the year 2000, at around time interval 0:01:42, the tally for total global emissions exceeds 906 Gt CO₂, and then the tally fades out above 1077 Gt CO₂, before reaching the year 2010.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQ7S0D1iucY
3. On Mar 29, Nature published an open access paper by Matthew W Jones et. al. titled National contributions to climate change due to historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide since 1850. This paper introduces a new dataset of national contributions to global warming caused by historical emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide during the years 1851–2021, which are consistent with the latest findings of the IPCC.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02041-1
Ron R.: – “…to date is that roughly 550 to 75o trillion barrels of burned oil (carbon) floating around in the sky?”
I seriously doubt it’s in the hundreds of trillions of barrels range. Are you referring to barrels of oil (energy equivalent) for human-induced activities in the production of all carbon-based fuels (coal, peat, oil, gas, timber/wood, etc.) since about 1750 (or some other time interval)? Or are you referring to just total global oil production (or perhaps total liquid fuels), and over what period?
Various estimates of global accumulated oil extraction since about 1870 (through to perhaps 2007-8?) suggest at least 135 billion barrels.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507072830.htm
A graph of world annual oil production, from 1900 through to 2021 is shown at: https://transportgeography.org/contents/chapter4/transportation-and-energy/peak-oil/
Total world ‘liquids’ production has recovered to 99% of 2018 average level, but crude oil plus condensate has not.
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1615692186682814467
No, it was just a stupid mistake on my part, Geoff. Mixing some words up. Part of the problem is that I’m using a phone with auto-wrong, as I call it (auto correct) and a tiny screen. Maybe also too much to think about too. :/ I appreciate your efforts.
“Jones says that we have used at least 135 billion barrels of oil since 1870…”
“ODAC’s 944 billion barrels is thus the equivalent of 135 billion tonnes.” Science Daily
So a tonne is equal too a barrel here?
From above, “But using the estimates above, if we’ve used somewhere between 1.1 trillion and 1.5 trillion barrels of oil since the beginning of time…”. 2019
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/How-Much-Crude-Oil-Has-The-World-Really-Consumed.html
And if 1/2 of that has ended up in the atmosphere (correct?) isn’t that about 550 billion to 750 billion barrels of burned oil left there?
Sorry for my obtuseness.
Ron R.: – “So a tonne is equal too a barrel here?”
Nope. Per BP’s Statistical Review of World Energy-2022, the conversion factor (approximation) they use is:
1 tonne crude oil = 7.33 barrels (page 56)
The conversion factor for mass to volume is dependent on the density of crude oil.
https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/api-gravity-d_1212.html
https://www.mckinseyenergyinsights.com/resources/refinery-reference-desk/api-gravity/
An example of a tonnes to barrels calculator for a specific API gravity value is at: https://ioilfield.com/units_correl/uc_ton_barrel.html
Okay, thanks, Geoff.
To all and everyone here
Permit me to give you all a very practical advice from my own experience.
Instead of diiscussing eventually also denying global warming, turn the question around and discuss the o9pposite, namely global cooling., and try and deny that.
The cool side of the globe is not the poles. The poles would have melted very long ago if they were to take all that warmth.
The cool side of the globe is the tropopause, the so called isoterm layer, that envelpos the very globe all around at 8 Km heighth at the poles and 17 Km over Kilimanjaro. I have been there 12 Km high by Lufthansa south of Island. The outdoor thermometer waved between – 65 to -70 celsius in bright afternoon sunshine autumnal equinox about 45 deg north. That is colder than midnight midwinter in Siberia. And this fact and why the lapse-rate suddenly does not sink anymore above there, rather rises a bit, must be given a true, physical explainatuion first, in order for you all to qualify for the climate dispute.
Because, else you will not know what climate is about.
Now, what heats us?
That is a round relativistic phaenomenon measuring 30 seconds of arch as seen from here, keeping 5750 Kelvin on its surface. Radiating Bolzmann on a rather continouis Planc- spectrum.
And what cools us?
That is another relativistic phaenomenon, that is also quite round measuring 2 pi minus 30 arch seconds as seen from here and keeping 3 Kelvin radiating the same way. And our radiator in that direction is the Tropopause. wherefore it is so incredibly cold all around
The mean of those 2 relativistic phaenomena comes to about -18 Celsius here on earth and can be checked up by the moon, its mean temperature integrated all around, The moon being a sphaerical grey stone in Vacuum that rotates 1AU from the nearest star.
Now, if we measure anything else here where we live, it is because it is summer, or because we heat or…. because it does not all radiate on continous Planc- spectra.
I repeat…..
That formula explains it all.
And to study that, we must study quantum mechanics and microchosmic sciences.
It is as easy as that for all of you, and you can resign on your Perpetuum Mobilers and Evapotranspirations. that hardly cool the earth at all.
The Earth exists in, and is getting cooled by the BIG BANG situatiuon. The chill of space everywhere around us also in bright sunshine.
Venus, brilliant white at 0.7 AU from the sun is said to keep about -40 celsius on top of its clouds with sun right against it. And 460 celsius on the ground. That is deep cherryred heat, above the melting temperature even of zink.
I asked Prof.Emeritus Jan Erik Solheim at their “Klimapizza” downtown:
“The ground temjperatures on Venus…” I said, knowing that exactly that is a very hot potatoe.
( Because It is James Hansens fameous Royal Thought on behalf of NASA GISS.)
“Oh yes, there is so high pressure there.. smile smile,.. “‘
……….. Prof. Em. J. Solheim of theoretical Astrophysics UiO.no replied kindly
Then I knew that Solheim also has a large hole in his head because he most probably has had his “Dr” dissertation and professorship on the Party Quote in the good old days. The Party with P, P for Party.
Moral:
Beware of me, I know how to ask and examine people.
But see that practical formula of what cools us and heats us and what is in between namely Microchosmos. Then it clears up and you will know what it is about.
@crap-O-mountain says: – ” … formula of what cools us and heats us…”
ms: — You’ve come up again with a wonderful heap of scrambled nonsense.
3423 letters – one dumber than the other – you probably loved playing on the dung heap as a child – with your little bucket and shovel. Three letters would have been enough to answer what is really cooling or heating the earth. ——————————— EEI —————- ———————Earth Energy Imbalance – ever heard of this??? ——–. Only lower solar irradiance / higher albedo / or higher outgoing longwave radiation can cool the planet. And vice versa, it requires higher solar radiation or decreasing albedo / ORL to warm the planet.
– So NO – it is NOT Lufthansa or a hot potatoe that is heating up the Big Bang, climate pizza & the Venus of Solheim.
Your intention here in the forum is quite obvious. You try to turn the forum into a chicken run with big dunghills in the middle and on top YOU sit as a rooster and announce crap to us three times a day.
!!! – Watch out for ovens and foxes.
@ All and everyone
about the expert.
The question is, what cools the planet? What cools te engine? and what heats it?
The fameous cooler for the coolwater cools the engine, and what further cools that cooler?
Then, what heats the engine? if left aqlone it will adapt to enviromental climate temperature. Then, what heats it above that so it has to be cooled also, else it will be overheated?
And between that, there is a cooler- thermostat.
Scürlers seem not to have learnt such tings.
For ovens, I am an expert really and can show to science in press.
For froxes and other canides I am not an expert, rather but amateur. But we have strychnine, and “revesaks” fox scissers, blacksmith work. Ande the Felidæ tackle them easily. Use candlelight or soft incadescent lamp light behind a red gold ruby glass, and they see nothing whereas we see them easily.
Berries of Daphne mezereum in the climate is known to kill them efficiently. .
Just stop already. Your word salad posts are giving me a headache!
Giving you a headache?
Really?
Perhaps my medicine works then on those who must have it that way.
Namely
Old trolls and wooden sculls.
Asbestos- concrete- brains.
Calcified tissues.
They are so settled in their professional, socially and geographically , historically provincial style of thoughts so they must have it all smoothly their way, “Business as usual”. And will never understand.
”
It is important to know who they are then, somehow to fish out or smoke out the old and conservative trolls
That`s maybe what I am here for.?
One should do it in Krjeml also, but maybe someone else is doing the same inside there in our days. It may seem so. They are really in pain and suffer.
@ Chuck Hughes
— His intention here in the forum is quite obvious. He tries to turn the forum into a chicken run with big dunghills in the middle and on top HE sits as a rooster and announce crap to us three times a day.
Here’s the proof:
https://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2019/11/hur-klimatanpassar-vi-sverige.html?showComment=1636144569286#c4525712848383032178
https://uppsalainitiativet.blogspot.com/2019/11/hur-klimatanpassar-vi-sverige.html?showComment=1581332856450#c3390396477952568499
Translate it with google and find him under the pseudonym “heidrun’s hen house”. (LOL)
He spreads the same intellectual shit and oscillating macarel soup also in Europe.
Better you laugh – instead of feeling a headache… I`m afraid we’ll have to get used to such idiots in the future.
Barton Paul Levenson says // 31 MAR 2023 AT 5:59 AM
” ms: I asked you or invited you to discuss the CERES data 2000-2020, albedo and GHE.
BPL: You don’t know how to calculate a trend, do you? Or what error bars mean.
It’s an old denier trope that “It’s not carbon dioxide, it’s albedo!” Sometimes they cite CERES. Sometimes they cite Pallé. The one thing they will not do is do the math. Usually because they can’t.
ms: I’ll burn down your sheepfold. All I have to do is keep my legs still and grin silently.
BPL: Not sure what this refers to. But in case you didn’t know, transmitting threats by electronic media is a violation of the Telecommunications Act of 1983 (the Helms Act). Violations are punishable by up to
five (5) years in jail and fines up to $20,000.00. ”
———————————–
MS: — All trends of my GEB (2023-2026) from CERES ebaf 4.2 including error bars are calculated and published by Trenberth, Loeb, Wild – NASA & NOAA. If you don’t like the fact that the Earth’s albedo has fallen by -1.4W/m², while the climate forcing from CO2 contributes only 0.6W/m² during the last 20 years, please complain elsewhere (preferably at Sunday mass with your pastor). Your pathetic overview goes even further…
You fantasize about punishment and still haven’t understood that you already have one foot in front of the Last Judgment. Do you think stupid cretins and their sheepfolds are spared?
If you are threatened again because someone keeps his legs still and grins silently, – then call your mom with your flip phone first.
ms: If you don’t like the fact that the Earth’s albedo has fallen by -1.4W/m², while the climate forcing from CO2 contributes only 0.6W/m² during the last 20 years,
BPL: It’s a “fact” only in your mind. You’re also comparing 20 years for one effect to 200 years for the other. You know what they say about apples and oranges.
ms: please complain elsewhere (preferably at Sunday mass with your pastor).
BPL: I’m a Presbyterian.
ms: You fantasize about punishment
BPL: Projection.
CO2 causes warming which then causes the melting of ice sheets and changes to cloud cover thus reduced albedo. I thought this was expected, and so not unusual..
@nigelj says: – ” CO2 causes warming which then causes … changes to cloud cover thus reduced albedo. I thought this was expected, and so not unusual..
ms: — Nigelj – then please explain to us which physical, chemical or pseudo-scientific changes in cloud albedo usual is caused by the higher CO2 concentration. (preferably with a link to a scientific paper on the subject)
For 2 years I have been offering decreasing evaporation or relative humidity as a cause and explanation for decreasing cloud albedo, which has also been observable with satellite-based measurements for decades.
If you’re feeling warm now… it’s your own fault.
Incidentally, one can very easily die from a lack of logic if one has answered the question
– “to be – or not to be” – incorrectly at the wrong time / in the wrong place / or with the wrong state of mind.
Macias Shurly
Some references listed below on how anthropogenic warming changes cloud cover, especially a loss of low level cloud cover:
“Observations have shown, however, that warmer temperatures seems to create less dense, low-level clouds instead. The evidence we have so far suggests that this effect occurs because, as temperature increases, the air near the surface becomes drier, causing the cloud base to rise and reducing the cloud layer thickness.”
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/role.html#:~:text=Observations%20have%20shown%2C%20however%2C%20that,reducing%20the%20cloud%20layer%20thickness.
“Recent climate models project that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 above pre-industrial levels could cause temperatures to soar far above previous estimates. A warming earth, researchers now say, will lead to a loss of clouds, allowing more solar energy to strike the planet.”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/why-clouds-are-the-key-to-new-troubling-projections-on-warming
“Scientists predict that climate change will increase evaporation, leading to an increase in rainfall globally – although there will be considerable variation on a regional level. But increased rainfall does not simply translate into more clouds. Instead, changing conditions will affect how and where clouds form and how they behave.
“In some areas, climate change will probably cause more low clouds to form, which could offset a rise in global temperature. In mid-latitudes, however, low cloud cover is expected to decrease.”
https://www.sciencefocus.com/planet-earth/if-global-warming-increases-rainfall-could-the-extra-clouds-block-sunlight-and-help-cool-the-earth/
MY COMMENT: .
Im not exactly sure what sources of decreased evaporation and alleged related decreased cloud cover, you refer to because I dont read all the comments, but perhaps you mean deforestation.
Global deforestation started in earnest as far back as the 1600’s and has continued to this day. About half of the deforestation happened before 1900 yet there was no significant global warming 1600 – 1900. So deforestation with associated cloud cover changes doesn’t seem to have caused significant global warming. So it looks likely that 20th century warming was caused mostly by CO2.
Deforestation reduces evapotranspiration and has some effects on local surface temperatures.
@nigelj says: –
” Im not exactly sure what sources of decreased evaporation and alleged related decreased cloud cover, you refer to because I dont read…”
ms: — Evaporation from agricultural, forestry and urban land has decreased extensively to date on 72% (94 million km²) of the ice-free land area (130 million km²).
https://globalchallenges.ch/figure/box-breakdown-of-the-global-ice-free-land-surface-130-million-km2/
Evaporation has decreased by up to 39% on 92 million km² of agricultural and forestry land,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214581815000543
…and together with 25-50% reduced evaporation over ~ 1.5 – 2 million km² of urban
paved area results
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2021EF002045
… to the fact that over this total area of ~93.6 million km² up to now
~ 6800 km³ / year = (~10% of the evaporation over land areas)
less evaporation takes place, because precipitation, irrigation and service water flows too quickly towards the rivers & oceans.
Such a massive loss of evaporation on the land surface must also cause changes in the overlying troposphere.
Relative humidity (RH) has been decreasing for decades with a trend of up to ~ -0.22% per decade. For our atmosphere with a total volume of water (vapour) of ~13000 km³, a drop in RH by 1% at a constant temperature of e.g. 16°C means a loss of ~170 km³ of absolute humidity.
If we wanted to compensate for this 1% loss, ~ 40 x 170 km³ (6800km³) would have to be additionally evaporated per year, since the average residence time of water vapor in the atmosphere is only ~9 days. As additional evaporation in a GEB/land, this volume corresponds to an evaporation of ~3.5W/m² or 45L/m² and quantifies the loss of evaporative landscape due to changed land use from around 1948 to 2022 today.
The inevitable increase in sensible heat flux and ground temperature totaling ~3.5W/m² largely explains the temperature increase over land surfaces during this period.
– Anyone who denies CO2 as a GHG and warming climate driver is blind in at least one eye.
– Anyone who denies UHI and/or the loss of evaporative landscapes and clouds may be blind in the other eye.
We’ve had enough of one-eyed “climate experts”…start reading authors who take a more complete view of climate.
In the IPCC graphic below (2021) you correctly find global irrigation (~1000km³) as a cooling climate driver – !!! but why is the graphic missing the drainage of the continents (6800km³) described above as a warming climate driver??? !!!
Are there one-eyed amateurs at work???
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a0/Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg/450px-Physical_Drivers_of_climate_change.svg.png
40 year trend of global mean cloud cover:
https://climateprotectionhardware.files.wordpress.com/2022/09/a3.png
60 year trend of sunshine hours anomaly in my home region: ( +2,7h/y )
https://www.dwd.de/DWD/klima/national/gebietsmittel/brdras_sun_17_bw_6190_ano.png
BTW – 6800km³/y of evaporation corresponds to ~ 1.3% of the total annual evaporation, which has been strongly correlated with global cloud formation since Aristotle described the water cycle.
Geoff Miell says
Observed global mean surface temperature warming rate has been about +0.18 °C per decade (best linear fit) for the period 1970 to 2015.
V: Interesting choice of dates. From the mid-to-late 1970s until 1998 surface temperatures did indeed warm considerably. From then until 2015 they warmed only very slightly if at all. (See the Fyfe et al. paper I’ve already referenced.) So what’s the point of lumping them together to produce a highly misleading “trend”?
GM: See Fig 19 showing the global mean surface temperature anomaly (relative to 1880-1920 baseline) for the historical record period 1880 to 2022, plus a projection of between +0.36 and +0.27°C per decade warming rates out to 2050, presented in the Hansen et. al. pre-print paper titled Global warming in the pipeline
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2212.04474
V: This graph clearly shows the difference between the two periods I referenced above, the turning point clearly visible from 1998 on. The hiatus from 1998 through 2015 that’s got so many so worked up is even more evident in the following graphs:
Hadcrut5: https://www.climate4you.com/images/HadCRUT5%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505reference.gif
UAH: https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2023_v6.jpg
RSS: https://www.climate4you.com/images/MSU%20RSS%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1979%20With37monthRunningAverage%20With201505Reference.gif
GM: Observed sea level rise is accelerating:
1993-1998: +1.5 mm per year
1998-2012: +3.2 mm per year
2012-2018: +5.0 mm per year
V: Yes, if you carefully select your endpoints you can tease out just about any numbers that suit you. According to a paper published in Nature in 2016, “current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era.” https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245
A glance at the following sea level graph (courtesy of NASA) is revealing: https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/471
If you select 2015 as your endpoint you can indeed claim an acceleration. But sea levels appear to have decelerated from then to 2016 when the above mentioned paper was published. Examining the overall picture we see a steady climb with various wobbles but no evidence of long-term acceleration.
GM: See the graph displayed in the YouTube video titled Sea Level Rise Can No Longer Be Stopped, What Next? – with John Englander from time interval 0:27:20.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvqY2NcBWI8
V: That presentation is laughable. He wants very much to see evidence of acceleration in that graph, but as he himself states, “it’s a pretty straight line.” Nevertheless, he sees “the early stage of exponential growth.” A bit of wishful thinking no doubt as there is no evidence of exponential growth anywhere in that graph.
V: That presentation is laughable. He wants very much to see evidence of acceleration in that graph, but as he himself states, “it’s a pretty straight line.” Nevertheless, he sees “the early stage of exponential growth.” A bit of wishful thinking no doubt as there is no evidence of exponential growth anywhere in that graph.
BPL: That’s because you don’t read such things from a graph. You find them by statistical analysis of the data in digital form. There are tests for whether a time series is experiencing exponential growth or not, and you can’t conclude yes or no by eyeballing a chart.
Sadly, “eyeballing” is V’s primary regression technique in all cases as we’ve seen with his various “wiggle analyses”. This is just one subset.
V’s “analysis” here kinda’ reminds of those old Kelvin plots starting at O degrees K deniers used to publish to “prove” there wasn’t any positive trend.
@ jgnfld
I have tried with a prersumably straight wooden ruler on the screen and by sheere “eyeballing” when you look with one eye along it to examine its straightness. .
Especially by “eyeballing” it as suggested, , there cannot be any more doubt that it curves also, upwards.
That Banana is curved,
as theoretically predicted.
So, I tend to conclue here that a lot of people hardly learnt analytic geometry and pattern recognition on elementary level. Not even how to “eyeball”.
It is sad.
It is symptoms of basic sensual and recognitional errors by consceptual defects.
But I have found that before in many other aspects. namely elementary and large holes in their very sensual and recognitional conscepts, swarming and performing- teaching on the free market at bright daylight. Cyclopes and Trolls and everything.
One must be aware of it, and people should learn how to cross- examine it.
It is not about opinions. Opinions is only a secondary consequense of it
. It is about basic physio9logical, sensual and consceptual abnormities and defects on individual level that are being hidden.
It is incureable. Some large individs can only hope for their next incarnation.
But knowing oneself for it and how to seek help and where to ask, , makes that one can live with it.
As a training example:
Red-green colour blinds for instance, called Daltonism, , should not be set to pick strawberries or craneberries- lingonberries. and not be allowed to instruct and “judge” others boldly on the same, as they hardly see the colour difference between blood and motor oil.
Not even to “judge” themselves or their next person on cherrypicking.
Levenson
You often represent a blatant shortcut monocausal monocultural style that I cannot accept.
Once it was about Earthshine, where I by facultary order congratulates anything that can observe measure or quantify anything by a next and systematically independent empirical procedure..
Fools did also disqualify radio astronomy due to “errorbars smile smile” given by very dirty mirrors and results, mirrors full of open meshes, corrosion and birdshit. Today, radio astronomy has the worlds record of angular resolution by distance. .
The one method does not conquer or compeat sporty or commercially with the next, they complement each other.
Take the example finding north. The compasses is fameous but-…..
then we have the sun and a clock… but it may be night and it may be cloudy and that clock is hardly calibrated. A severely advanced naval chronometer was a MUST! in pre- electric days, else you could miss an island by longitude in the Pacific and die ofv thirst Thus never badger and ridicule huyghens pendulum in Cardani mount, by temperature compensated elastic forces It works independently of external accelerating forces and isw antimagnetic. .
Horologium moscillatorium is holy.
Then the polar star, not quite accurate but far better than your compasses. But again it may be cloudy.
I have withnessed radio- bearing at near gale in the north sea. You need the map position of 2 radio transmitters on land. And the same could be done rather accurately by an old radio with ferrite rod antenna. In cloudy weather.
But if all that is not at hand, you can also try and judge the sunny and the north side of trees, anthills and rocks, at higther altitudes.
How many scientifric methods have we got now?
Does any of them rule out any next?
And should any of theese rather be forgottenn and disqualified because of “error bars” and “confidence” and “statistics”?
If so, then you display and betray that you hardly know what north east south west is about and how it works.
I have the same very often in chemistery and elsewhere and everyday How to be scientific and how not to be helpless in critical situations and how to grasp what it is about and how things work and are connected.
Lets say you are to take and to use medicines or decide on food and mushroms. Then you need more than one and only one analytic method. The enlighted way is 3 good reasons. by 3 systematically independent operational empirical methods before you dare to deliver or dare to conlude. and to swallow.
That is the basic principle of stating proof regardless of faculty. I learnt it from the forensic toxicological laboratory where their results could change the rights and destiny of people.
It is further how “The alternatives” here are to be taken and treated, thus rather train it.
Never fight that good old civilized and scientific rule of life and behaviours. Do not teach numerology over geometry oscilloscopy and servography on behalf of “you” or “one”. the anonymeous collective expertise that is to be trusted.
If you are one and yourself without “peers” and have to know it and decide right, then better orientate by that analytic facultary rule.
Ask the doctor, ask yourself, ask a veterinarian also remember we are fur animals, and ask the patient. Then you have 4 systematically independent empirical methods.
Never ask or trust the “peers”.
Exactly right. For one obvious thing, the visibility of trend in a graph of a timeseries is highly dependent upon the scaling of x- and y-axes. Hence, JG’s:
Though, sad to say, they still *are* pushing them, for instance on Twitter. Saw one just the other day.
I don’t have a twit account, thankfully! I have a facebook account but only for local gardening and photog groups and NEVER use it otherwise. Life is too short at my age!
Victor: – “Interesting choice of dates. From the mid-to-late 1970s until 1998 surface temperatures did indeed warm considerably. From then until 2015 they warmed only very slightly if at all.”
It seems to me you refuse to accept the inconvenient data from the GISS analysis. And it seems the NOAA, HadCRUT and Berkeley Earth analyses correlate – see Gavin’s post on 13 Jan 2023 at RealClimate headlined 2022 updates to the temperature records.
https://www.realclimate.org/images/compare_sat_2023-600×386.png
Victor: – “This graph clearly shows the difference between the two periods I referenced above, the turning point clearly visible from 1998 on. The hiatus from 1998 through 2015 that’s got so many so worked up…”
There has been no “hiatus”, Victor. Per the GISS analysis, the top 10 hottest years on instrumental record include:
#01: 2020: +1.29 °C
#02: 2016: +1.28 °C
#03: 2019: +1.24 °C
#04: 2017: +1.19 °C
#05: 2015 & 2022: +1.16 °C
#07: 2021 & 2018: +1.12 °C
#09: 2014: +1.01 °C
#10: 2010: +0.99 °C
See Table 1 & Figure 2 at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Temperature2022.12January2023.pdf
What Fyfe et. al. paper? Is it the 2016 paper Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown? That’s a little over 7 years ago – I’d suggest it’s now ancient history! Or is it perhaps the even earlier 2013 paper Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years? Why are you cherry-picking (an) older paper(s)?
I think it would be foolish to bet that Hansen & colleagues are significantly wrong on this issue. Who are you Victor? Have you published any peer-reviewed scientific papers related to climate, Victor? What makes you think you know better than many, many peer-reviewed published climate scientists?
Victor, why are you referring to a HadCRUT5 non-infill graph? And why have you sourced it from climate4you? Why haven’t you sourced any HadCRUT5 graphs from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? Would that be inconvenient for your narrative, Victor?
https://www.uea.ac.uk/web/groups-and-centres/climatic-research-unit/data
Victor: – “Yes, if you carefully select your endpoints you can tease out just about any numbers that suit you.”
That’s the inconvenient data. Why are you offering the 2016 Nature paper, Victor? The data range is shorter, from year 1993 to 2016, whereas the graph provided by John Englander has a longer range, from year 1993 to 2018, and the acceleration trend is clearly evident.
The NASA graph you refer to clearly shows an increased rate of sea level rise, around +5 mm/yr, from the year 2012 to 2022 interval. The average rate of change of +3.4 mm/yr is for the whole dataset period, from 1993 to 2022. IMO, the NASA graph corroborates and is an extension (i.e. larger dataset) of the graph provided by John Englander. Victor, thanks for providing additional evidence/data that reinforces my point – SLR is clearly accelerating.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/471
Victor: – “A bit of wishful thinking no doubt as there is no evidence of exponential growth anywhere in that graph.”
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
On 22 August 2022, at the Cryosphere 2022 Symposium at the Harpa Conference Centre Reykjavik, Iceland, glaciologist Professor Jason Box presented a graph showing accelerating land ice loss from 1971 through to 2019, for the Arctic (including Greenland), Greenland only, Arctic (without Greenland) and Antarctica (1992-2017) from time interval 0:12:47. Per the displayed graph, the rates of eustatic sea level contributions from land ice loss have been accelerating decade by decade. I’d suggest the exponential growth of the curves are clearly evident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6QIDJIcUQ
And it seems you haven’t responded to the overwhelming evidence of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extents diminishing, or the upper ocean heat content increasing. Just ignore anything that’s too difficult and inconvenient for your ideological narrative to contend with, aye Victor?
Genosse Schürle
Your sectionn 3 from below:
“If you select 2015 as your endpoint…..blablablabla,..”
I checked up your reference sealevel nasa gov with a long enough ruler that I allways have at hand for screen examination, and found obvious upwards curving beyond any doubt and in the noises, from 1993 to 2022.
It seems more and more to me that you may be some kind of an “influenzer” or political agent , even if it is only in your own illusions, that is systematically teaching people against all solid learning of critical scientific thoughts and elementary methods, even against analytic geometry and the closer checkup of empirical graphs.
I have my own empirical eyemarks on the sealevel, on 1, loppeskjæret, 2, Småskjær, and in 3 Vindfangebukta Frogn pr Drøbak. It is slowly getting apparent there. The fameous and very predictable landrising in our area for centuries and millenia of which there are obvious natural and artificial marks on land that can be dated, , is suddenly slowing down
I would hate to have to change my mind on that on anyones recommendation. Or to have anyones smearwords to that also.
Unluckily I confused them Victor an Matthias Schürle..
This is an answer ratrher to Victors denial of sea level rise acceletration as can be seen also by empirical graphs examination and in nature.
My wiew of Schürle as an “influenzer” or progressive political agent even if that is only in his own illusion, is roughly appliciablew the same way also to Victor.. They seem to be serving under an illusionary “thinktank” or secret closed society where they are instructed, both of them.
Victor. You seem to believe warming stopped in 1998. Please be aware that the last 12 months were significantly warmer than years like 2006, 1998, for example, according to the surface temperature data sets like Hadcrut (that you posed) and Giss. This is despite the last 12 months being a la nina year, and these tend to be cooler than average. So how long are you going to go on fooling yourself that warming stopped in 1998?
Remember how the “escalator” shows how on can chop up the temp record into many sections with downward trends (with a careful selection of start/end pointsand zero with a positive trend? Vic is simply–but only partially–doing the same thing.
Present version showing the last half century consisting ENTIRELY of “hiatuses” is here…
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=465
I’m surprised he never uses it as “evidence” there has never been any warming since the 70s.
“So how long are you going to go on fooling yourself that warming stopped in 1998?”
About the same length of time the UK government is going to tell us the massive delays at Dover have nothing to do with Brexit, despite also admitting Brexit has made border controls with the continent longer and more complicated.
There’s facts and evidence, and there’s what people want to believe, and they are not always the same things.
MA Rodger: Victor the Troll,
You misrepresent Spencer Weart who writes of the present knowledge of the modern temperature trend:-
“If you compared the irregularly climbing curve of temperatures since the 1860s with the curves produced by computer models that calculated the effects of the rise of greenhouse gases with adjustments for volcanic eruptions and other aerosol pollution, variations in solar activity, and ocean cycles, the match was remarkably close within the known margin of observational error.”
V: Here’s the complete quote from Weart’s history:
“The scientists who brushed aside Callendar’s claims were reasoning well enough. (Subsequent work has shown that the temperature rise up to 1940 was, as his critics thought, mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect, not by the still relatively low CO2 emissions. And the physics of radiation and climate was indeed too poorly known at that time to show whether adding more gas could make much difference.)”
I fail to see how the passage you’ve quoted above somehow cancels out Weart’s assessment of Callendar’s claim. Nor can I understand how a direct quote can be a misrepresentation.
MAR: just as you misrepresent Fyfe et al (2016) ‘Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown’ who say, for instance:-
“A point of agreement we have with Ref. 26 [Lewandowsky et al 2015] concerns the unfortunate way in which the recent changes have been framed in terms of GMST having “‘stalled’, ‘stopped’, ‘paused’, or entered a ‘hiatus’”.
V: You fail to include the passage that immediately follows: “Just exactly how such changes should be referred to is open to debate. Possible choices
include ‘reduced rate of warming’, ‘decadal fluctuation’ or ‘temporary slowdown’ — all try to convey the primary mechanism involved, which in the recent example is likely to be internal decadal variability.”
Clearly the authors are concerned with the language in which the data “has been framed,” lest such terminology be used to further the “denialist” cause. Nevertheless they did in fact frame their findings using such terminology.
In any case, the passage I quoted above makes it clear that the temperature record during the period in question can be attributed to “internal decadal variability” rather than greenhouse gas forcings. which, according to their research, had a minimal effect.
Victor the Troll,
You do indeed quote Weart but you also pass judgement in that you said “The runup in temperature from ca. 1910 through ca. 1940 could not have been caused by CO2 emissions, according to climate scientist Spencer Weart.” Weart wrote no such thing. He wrote:-
Weart is saying the recent warming seen in 1940 was not “mainly caused” by CO2 but by “some kind of natural cyclical effect.” You then use your misjudgement of Weart to support your ridiculous assertion that CO2 is not correlated with global temperature. Yet elsewhere in his account of the changing understanding of the role of CO2 in AGW Weart directly contradicts your foolishness saying that assessments of global temperature since the 1860s which calculate “the effects of the rise of greenhouse gases with adjustments for volcanic eruptions and other aerosol pollution, variations in solar activity, and ocean cycles” provide a “match … remarkably close within the known margin of observational error.” Or if you feel that is not direct enough, his concluding line in the precis of that page ‘The Modern Temperature Trend’ runs “The specific pattern of changes matched the predicted effects of humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions.”
As for your attempts to use the “early 2000s warming slowdown” to further your nonsense, I am surprised you don’t note that Weart also covers this particular temperature wobble. Perhaps his writing on the subject is not to your liking. (An omission that’s called “cherry pickng”.) Instead you toss Fyfe et al (2016) into your denial-fest, a strange decision as Fyfe et al were setting out the role of CO2 and other GHGs in recent warming trends and how these trends will include slowdowns due to other factors. They even pass judegement on the ” the so-called “big hiatus” from the 1950s to the 1970s” but their words doesn’t suit your dellusions so are something else that goes unmentioned.
Your crazy campaign here since October 2014 has been to deny any role of CO2 in that warming, rather than the dominant role demonstrated by the science. Such nonsense is at vaiance with Fyfe et al who are quite clear as to where they stand.
Your extraordinary ability to spin and blow smoke never ceases to impress me, MAR. My quote from Weart was in reference to his view of one particular climate trend, nothing more. I’m fully aware of his views regarding the evidence as a whole, and have never claimed Weart was a “denier,” which he clearly was not. But that has NOTHING to do with his assessment of the early 20th century temperature rise, which is crystal clear. Your clumsy effort to concoct a straw man is embarrassingly obvious.
As for your response to the Fyfe et al. paper, that’s just more straw man nonsense. As with Weart I understand very well that Fyfe and his collaborators are not climate “deniers,” so the quote you offered is no surprise. Yet it has NO bearing on their conclusion that the hiatus was indeed real. Their acceptance of the climate change meme overall makes their support of the hiatus all the more impressive.
Victor the Troll,
Your brainless adherence to this ‘no correlation’ nonsense is entirely evident to all but you. Weart is not supporting your grand idea of there being no “meaningful long=term correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures.” You are away with the fairies if you think otherwise (which you apparently do).
And Fyfe et al (2016) makes plain that there was no ‘hiatus’. They explain there was a ‘slowdown’ in the rate of warming, that warming being driven by rising CO2. So your grand theory that “there is no evidence whatsoever of a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures, aside from the brief 20 year period at the end of the previous century, which all but rules out the possibility of a causal relationship, thus placing the entire human-caused “climate change” meme in serious doubt” is your own personal delusion and not in any way true.
Nope. Their conclusion was that while warming is ongoing, observed air temps may be modulated by other factors for a short period of time.
Rather different from your own w=conclusion.
Yes, the warming Callendar noted could have been about 1/3 due to GHG forcing, per a back-of-the-envelope estimate I did a few years ago. That would still have allowed Weart to write as he did that is was “mainly caused by some kind of natural cyclical effect.” And as you point out, the period is successfully modeled–including the ‘artificial’ GHE. (Had to use that word, in homage to Callendar.)
Speaking of Callendar, although many of the oldtimers will have already seen this, some here may be interested in my life-and-times piece on him and his climate work:
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Global-Warming-Science-And-The-Wars
UAH have reported for March with a monthly TLT anomaly of +0.20ºC, the 7th warmest March on the UAH TLT record behind 2016 (+0.64 ºC), 2010 (+0.39 ºC), 2020 (+0.35 ºC), 1998 (+0.35 ºC), 2004 (+0.23 ºC) & 2019 (+0.22ºC), many of these ENSO-boosted. The chilly anomalies of Jan -0.04ºC and Feb +0.08ºC still result in a chilly start-of-the-year with Jan-Mar sitting in 15th spot, not a great rise on the Jan-Feb 17th spot.
…….. Jan-Mar Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.59ºC … … … +0.39ºC … … … 1st
2020 .. +0.45ºC … … … +0.36ºC … … … 2nd
1998 .. +0.39ºC … … … +0.35ºC … … … 3rd
2010 .. +0.35ºC … … … +0.19ºC … … … 6th
2017 .. +0.25ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 5th
2019 .. +0.22ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 4th
2007 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.02ºC … … … 15th
2004 .. +0.13ºC … … … -0.05ºC … … … 20th
2018 .. +0.13ºC … … … +0.09ºC … … … 10th
2002 .. +0.11ºC … … … +0.08ºC … … … 11th
2003 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.05ºC … … … 13th
2021 .. +0.10ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.14ºC … … … 8th
2013 .. +0.09ºC … … … +0.00ºC … … … 16th
2023 .. +0.08ºC
2005 .. +0.08ºC … … … +0.06ºC … … … 12th
2022 .. +0.06ºC … … … +0.17ºC … … … 7th
2006 .. +0.02ºC … … … -0.02ºC … … … 18th
2014 .. +0.00ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 14th
1991 .. -0.03ºC … … … -0.12ºC … … … 25th
TLT anomalies dipped low in Jan/Feb and are now returning to ‘normal’ values. SAT anomalies showed no dip and early indications show the March anomaly rising above ‘normal’ (eg the CFSR re-analysis showing the second warmest March on record).
@ MA rodger
You are presenting temperature series here every month as if they were sports records.
That may be polular but it is not how we orientate in the natural sciences..
I have a source Ole Humlums Climate4you, where the global temperature graphs from back to 1980 and from several institutes are served, without comments. Humlum can be taken for serious there. His comments are less valuable. .
But I am having another learning and approach to it by analytical geomettry and laboratory instrumentation oscilloscopy and servography online by passive components possibly un- biased.
There are 2 basically important methods. The input signal via a condenser over a resistor to ground, and signal output to be taken and displayed from the point beween the condenser and the resistor.
That mehod gives the speed of change, as referred to zero ground. The 1.st derivative. By passive unbiased components.
Then the opposite way,
A High resistor over a rather large condenser, and display the fullness emptiness from the top of that large bitty of charge condenser during the times and over the years.
That opposite method is giving the integral and eventual longtime trends. Just like a great lake with small rivers, ………or the magnitude levels of any really great and heavy glacier, or really large and great ocean.
“confidence” and “statistics” and “error bars” is silly dilettantic and far- fetched as long as those functional basics are not defined and understood first, namely “What is going on here? What on earth is it about?..
You can synthetize your signal in any way for your purpose, and hide to people and to yourself how Data are obtained- processed, and stored, through which resistance over which capacity or vice versa. By undefined and secret ground and basic zero earth reference line. And hiding leaks & contaminations in your barrels condensers of samplings. (Good statistics do not uncover systematic errors.)
Then by combining such an CR and RC passive filter highpass and lowpass, make both tuneable by variable resistors, and then with an adjustable positive feedback from output to input, you can uncover even the faintest cycling tendencies in your materials until it goes into cycling spin and only documents itself and nothing else regardless of input..
The rock and heavy metal consumers here will find this disturbing misconsceived and irrelevant, unaware that it sits further by turning knobs in any rock music control panel with eccho amplification by positive feedback for popular room signals.
I have first learnt it on juvenile freak radios, and applied it in updated form for the tecchnical analysis of Baroque pnevmatic oscillators namely very obsolete wind instruments,
That Fourier analysis of physical signal ” on the air” for oscilloscopy and servography by NASA- post- apollo analogue devices could beat anyting else on the free market. And can beat the further commerciallized industrialized dilettantisms of the climate dispute.
It sustains my good ear measurements and physical conscepts of rumbling and splashing and cycling of molecular matter, like we have it also in the climate, further at sea and in the clouds, and not only in the Baroque orchetras.
Wherefrore,……… I would like to have a better discussion also of the negative spikes and values in the worlds climate systems,
Negative spikes and shorttime integrals may be just as important as the top spike records and the integral means and its tendencies.. Namely that of the la Ninas and volcanic eruoptions and sudden and more permanent sulphate- effects in the climate.
Remark the tuneable highpass and the lowpass and the tuneable “Q” – bandpass re- sonance eccho aqmplifying filters for signal and Data -analysis..
Carbon-monotonous says:
*The rock and heavy metal consumers here will find this disturbing misconsceived and irrelevant, unaware that it sits further by turning knobs in any rock music control panel with eccho amplification by positive feedback for popular room signals.*
*I have first learnt it on juvenile freak radios, and applied it in updated form for the tecchnical analysis of Baroque pnevmatic oscillators namely very obsolete wind instruments,*
*That Fourier analysis of physical signal ” on the air” for oscilloscopy and servography by NASA- post- apollo analogue devices could beat anyting else on the free market. And can beat the further commerciallized industrialized dilettantisms of the climate dispute.*
Chuck: I have two questions for you, Carbon-monotonous…
1. Are you supposed to be taking any medication?
2. What in the fuck are you even talking about?
Between all the misspelled words and disjointed ideas, I can’t understand anything you’re trying to say. You make absolutely no sense at all. And furthermore, don’t bother trying to answer my questions because they’re purely rhetorical, and I seriously doubt I could understand your response.
@ all and everyone here
about Chuck Hughes above his head and begind his back:
“Rock and heavy metal” I wrote. As a “lure” for all those who perform political science on certain pooular , personality strengthening, synthetic Psychopharmaca
Chuck Hughes apparently took the “bait”
Whereby I am able to hang him out and present him and point at him as still another one…….. ……………As an example of what the “fuck” I am talking about.
They are characteristic class enemies, or better, bloody racial enemies of elementary scientific analytic conscepts, definitions, and devices!
I repeat……!
Because they consume it all through industrial LEGO with amplified Mehaphones in kilowatts from the Professional Party with P,…….. (= the PPP)
………………..on the factory floor within Error Bars where the Earth is flat as a military training ground or any conventional concentration camp in the Peoples republic……..
…………..On Party Dope to refresh them the better and to give them a new Personality..
Geoff Miell says
Victor: – “Interesting choice of dates. From the mid-to-late 1970s until 1998 surface temperatures did indeed warm considerably. From then until 2015 they warmed only very slightly if at all.”
GM: It seems to me you refuse to accept the inconvenient data from the GISS analysis.
V: Any attempt to shoehorn those two very different periods to give the impression of a single “trend” is misleading. You don’t have to be an expert to see that.
GM: And it seems the NOAA, HadCRUT and Berkeley Earth analyses correlate – see Gavin’s post on 13 Jan 2023 at RealClimate headlined 2022 updates to the temperature records.
https://www.realclimate.org/images/compare_sat_2023-600×386.png
Victor: – “This graph clearly shows the difference between the two periods I referenced above, the turning point clearly visible from 1998 on. The hiatus from 1998 through 2015 that’s got so many so worked up…”
V: Gavin’s graph shows the same difference.
GM: There has been no “hiatus”, Victor. Per the GISS analysis, the top 10 hottest years on instrumental record include:
#01: 2020: +1.29 °C
#02: 2016: +1.28 °C
#03: 2019: +1.24 °C
#04: 2017: +1.19 °C
#05: 2015 & 2022: +1.16 °C
#07: 2021 & 2018: +1.12 °C
#09: 2014: +1.01 °C
#10: 2010: +0.99 °C
V: Interesting. The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015. Almost all your dates are post-2015, reflecting an abrupt temperature rise usually attributed to a powerful El Nino.
GM: See Table 1 & Figure 2 at: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2023/Temperature2022.12January2023.pdf
V: This graph also reveals the same difference as cited above — moreover, the “Super El Nino” I referenced is clearly labeled.
GM: What Fyfe et. al. paper? Is it the 2016 paper Making sense of the early-2000s warming slowdown?
V: That’s the one.
GM: That’s a little over 7 years ago – I’d suggest it’s now ancient history!
V: You’re grasping at straws. That paper reflects research done by some of the best-known supporters of the “climate change” meme, who might have been expected to debunk the “hiatus.” Instead they, with impressive honestly, supported it. As far as I’m concerned this makes it definitive. Whether you see it as outdated means nothing. Even the latest studies will eventually become old. So what?
GM: I think it would be foolish to bet that Hansen & colleagues are significantly wrong on this issue. Who are you Victor? Have you published any peer-reviewed scientific papers related to climate, Victor? What makes you think you know better than many, many peer-reviewed published climate scientists?
V: I’ve never made such a claim. What I’ve always written here is based on my perception of the evidence, NOT any claim to superior knowledge.
GM: Victor, why are you referring to a HadCRUT5 non-infill graph? And why have you sourced it from climate4you? Why haven’t you sourced any HadCRUT5 graphs from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia? Would that be inconvenient for your narrative, Victor?
https://www.uea.ac.uk/web/groups-and-centres/climatic-research-unit/data
V: I prefer the non-infill graph as it’s based on actual evidence, while the infill graph is based on assumptions. Moreover the Hadcrut 5 non-infill graph is consistent with the picture presented by the satellite data I’ve already referenced: UAH and RISS. The satellite research has no need for infills as it’s based on direct observation rather than the interpretation of land-based measurements of questionable consistency.
GM: Victor: – “Yes, if you carefully select your endpoints you can tease out just about any numbers that suit you.”
That’s the inconvenient data. Why are you offering the 2016 Nature paper, Victor? The data range is shorter, from year 1993 to 2016, whereas the graph provided by John Englander has a longer range, from year 1993 to 2018, and the acceleration trend is clearly evident.
V: I cited that paper as an example of how it’s possible to come up with very different results based on the evaluation of different data points. And no, the acceleration trend is not clearly evident. During any given year it would be possible to claim either acceleration or deceleration depending on measurements taken during some previous time period. In any case, the graph as a whole reveals NO sign of anything remotely alarming, especially when you consider that sea level is being measured in millimeters.
GM: The NASA graph you refer to clearly shows an increased rate of sea level rise, around +5 mm/yr, from the year 2012 to 2022 interval. The average rate of change of +3.4 mm/yr is for the whole dataset period, from 1993 to 2022. IMO, the NASA graph corroborates and is an extension (i.e. larger dataset) of the graph provided by John Englander. Victor, thanks for providing additional evidence/data that reinforces my point – SLR is clearly accelerating.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/471
V: See above.
GM: And it seems you haven’t responded to the overwhelming evidence of Arctic & Antarctic sea ice extents diminishing, or the upper ocean heat content increasing. Just ignore anything that’s too difficult and inconvenient for your ideological narrative to contend with, aye Victor?
V: I didn’t respond because I have no problem with any of that research. Sea ice melt has no bearing on sea level and ocean heat content means little if it isn’t reflected in sea level rise, which is clearly not the case. For my analysis of this issue see http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/11/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-12-what.html
Victor
“V: Interesting. The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015. Almost all your dates are post-2015, reflecting an abrupt temperature rise usually attributed to a powerful El Nino.”
The abrupt temperature rises of the years after 2015 have never been attributed to the 2015 el nino event. Please provide a scientific reference to back up your false claim. Only the temperature rise in 2015 ( and part of 2016) has been attributed (partly) to the powerful 2015 el nino event..
The years following this 2015 el nino from 2016 (late 2016) – 2023 are not related to the 2015 el nino event. They stand alone because they include la nina years in (which tend to be slightly cooler than average) in 2016, 2017 and 2022 and 2023 and a weak el nino in 2018, and 2020 was neutral. Therefore the planet warmed after 2015 – 2016 not because of a large el nino in 2015, but largely due to anthropogenic influences. List of el nino and la nina years:
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Victor: – “Any attempt to shoehorn those two very different periods to give the impression of a single “trend” is misleading.”
I’d suggest that’s only in your mind. It seems to me any attempt to challenge your ideological narrative of a so-called warming “hiatus” with overwhelming & compelling evidence/data apparently will be rejected by you, aye Victor? ‘Computer says no’?
Victor: – “Interesting. The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015. Almost all your dates are post-2015, reflecting an abrupt temperature rise usually attributed to a powerful El Nino.”
But not all. Within your so-called 1998-2015 “hiatus” period were some of the 10 hottest years on the instrumental record, per GISS analysis:
#10: 2010: +0.99 °C
#09: 2014: +1.01 °C
#05: 2015: +1.16 °C
And in 2016, just after your so-called 1998-2015 “hiatus” period, was the second hottest year on the instrumental record. Perhaps ‘computer says no’ to that too?
Victor: – “You’re grasping at straws. That paper [i.e. Fyfe et. al. 2016 paper] reflects research done by some of the best-known supporters of the “climate change” meme, who might have been expected to debunk the “hiatus.””
Fyfe et. al. were not privy to the extra 7 years of temperature data that’s available to us now.
Victor: – “I’ve never made such a claim. What I’ve always written here is based on my perception of the evidence, NOT any claim to superior knowledge.”
I’d suggest your perception is constrained by your ideology, despite any compelling evidence/data that challenges it.
Victor: – “I prefer the non-infill graph as it’s based on actual evidence, while the infill graph is based on assumptions.”
Mmm, the HadCRUT5 non-infill graph you refer to is sourced from climate4you. A little check suggests the climate4you website is run by Ole Humlum. Per Wikipedia:
https://skepticalscience.com/search.php?t=c&Search=ole+humlum
Victor: – “Moreover the Hadcrut 5 non-infill graph is consistent with the picture presented by the satellite data I’ve already referenced: UAH and RISS. The satellite research has no need for infills as it’s based on direct observation rather than the interpretation of land-based measurements of questionable consistency.”
I think you mean, consistent with your ideological narrative. Questionable consistency by whom? You? Because it doesn’t fit with your ideological narrative, aye Victor?
Victor: – “And no, the [sea level rise] acceleration trend is not clearly evident.”
It seems to me only you can’t see the SLR acceleration trend because it doesn’t fit with your ideological narrative, aye Victor? Do you at least agree that SLR is rising? I mean, you offered the NASA graph showing the average rate of change of +3.4 mm/yr is for the whole dataset period, from 1993 to 2022.
https://sealevel.nasa.gov/internal_resources/471
And I note that you have ignored my earlier reference to the graph presented by glaciologist Professor Jason Box, in the YouTube video, showing accelerating land ice loss from 1971 through to 2019, for the Arctic (including Greenland), Greenland only, Arctic (without Greenland) and Antarctica (1992-2017) from time interval 0:12:47. I’d suggest the exponential growth of the curves are clearly evident; another inconvenient challenge to your ideological narrative, aye Victor?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iE6QIDJIcUQ
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function” – Albert Allen Bartlett
Victor; – “I didn’t respond because I have no problem with any of that research. Sea ice melt has no bearing on sea level and ocean heat content means little if it isn’t reflected in sea level rise, which is clearly not the case.”
Sea ice melt is an indicator that the polar regions are warming, and I’d suggest is contradicting the inference of your earlier question: “What “observed warming”?”
Less sea ice extent means more of the sun’s energy is absorbed by the darker polar seas.
Warming oceans expand, raising sea levels.
Warming oceans melt land-based glaciers in Greenland and Antarctica faster, accelerating rising sea levels.
Perhaps you might learn something from glaciologist Eric Rignot, in his presentation to the April 2019 General Meeting of the American Philosophical Society, duration 0:34:59.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnOykSCOf0c
But I doubt it…. ‘Computer says no’, aye Victor?
V: The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015.
BPL:
1. 18 years is not enough to mean anything. You need 30 years to tell a climate trend. Here’s why:
https://bartonlevenson.com/30Years.html
2. You cherry-picked the 2018 start date because it was a spike–the biggest El Nino up to that time. That’s cherry-picking. Start from 1997 or 1999 and you don’t get the same effect. Quit cheating.
In that period here was no hiatus in the rise of Ocean Heat Content, which is why V. has no point whatsoever..
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00376-023-2385-2.pdf
“” …The global long-term warming trend is so steady and robust that annual records continue to be set with each new year. The warming has accelerated in recent decades, with a faster rate of warming evident since roughly 1990 (Cheng et al., 2022a, b). …” – L. Cheng
For the record, there was no hiatus: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122018/global-warming-hiatus-pause-never-happened-studies-explain-climate-change-risbey-oreskes-mann/
(For the record, there was no hiatus: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/19122018/global-warming-hiatus-pause-never-happened-studies-explain-climate-change-risbey-oreskes-mann/)
Why are we relitigating settled science? We already know there was no pause in warming. Just because Weaktor didn’t get it the first time is no reason to keep going over and over it.
How about the latest information on sea level rise and how that’s speeding up? I’d like to know more about current projections for the next 20 years or so. Anybody have any information about that?
Chuck Hughes: – “How about the latest information on sea level rise and how that’s speeding up?”
You may find the YouTube video by glaciologist Professor Jason Box, published 30 Sep 2022, titled Greenland zombie ice and committed sea level rise, duration 0:05:15, of interest. It includes a brief overview of the Nature open access paper by Jason E Box et. al. titled Greenland ice sheet climate disequilibrium and committed sea-level rise, published 29 Aug 2022.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHbZysQYRO4
From time interval 0:00:16, a graph of ice sheet loss sea level rise contributions (in mm/yr) is displayed for the Greenland ice sheet, Canadian Arctic glaciers, US Arctic (Alaskan) glaciers, Greenland glaciers, Scandinavian glaciers, Russian Arctic glaciers, Antarctic land ice, and other glaciers, for period 2004–2010 – sourced from the Arctic Monitoring & Assessment Programme (AMAP), Figure 9.3 Comparison of Arctic sea level rates 2004–2010 with other global sea level components…
https://www.amap.no/maps-and-graphics/search?keywords=arctic+ice#3406
From time interval 0:04:05, a graph of Greenland projected Sea Level Rise (SLR) is displayed, comparing the IPCC’s AR6 SSP585 high emissions scenario with the 2022 Jason Box et. al. paper findings, that includes:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-022-01441-2
Then there’s this video collaboration between Dr. Ella Gilbert & Prof. Jason Box, published 20 Feb 2023, titled biggest loser – Antarctica?, duration 0:04:17.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtNXlmR2Yhw
And this video interview published on 14 Nov 2022, by Nick Breeze speaking with Professor Jason Box about his recent research that identifies the amount of Greenland’s ice sheet that is committed to melting in the coming decades:
0:03:39: “…by end of century, we are talking, you know, just from Greenland, at least fifty centimetres of sea rise…”
0:04:18: “…You know, so by mid-century, end-of-century, we’re probably going to be facing much bigger numbers.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrdMOFXuXlc
Victor
If I would read online empirical curves and servography the way you read temperature history graphics, I would be helpless. I could not even report on art surrealism and psychedelics.
You cannot read a drawing or a map with the intension of recognizing objects patterns connections and consequenses without the faintest idea at least, of what it is about, and that the given documents show more than one and only one thing, And with some learnings and ideas and critical experience about the drawing and servograpic or oscillographic tecniques.
Q: What is it and what is it about and how has it been done? For what purpose?
And at judging and using historical drawings maps and documents, an idea about bottom and background reality, the scools and learnings of those who did draw and write and document it, their ideas and intensions and their contemporary techniques of anno dazumal and vin their situation.
If that alltogether is not your higschool and political scientific and commercial facultary learning then quit judging and teasching about other peoples and other cultures documkents. and their eventual misconsceptions and errors.
In your special way, you are comitting culture imperialism on behalf of invading barbarians and rascal burglarshops here, which is quite sinful,
It hurts and violates most of all any healtyhy and necessary Scepsis to geophysical research and discussion.
Even Frank Luntz and Ropy Spencer have betrayed your mission.
Dear JCM,
you said 5 Apr 2023 at 8:20 AM
…Alternative themes centre around overall drying of the continents, directly by human intervention, in addition to feedback effects from trace gas, with particular rapid pace over the most recent centuries. ..
The extent in that the hydrological regime of our planet changed during historical era and, particularly, during the last ca 25 years of the remarkable global warming is one of many important points that I would like to learn more about in the discussion forum
https://orgpad.com/s/6jf-rtG8wUP
that I proposed above.
I have seen some references asserting that changes in the overall intensity of the global water cycle might be inferred from changes in oxygen and hydrogen nuclide ratios in atmospheric (“meteoric”) water. Should it be indeed possible, I would like to see how these changes fit (or do not fit) with changes in the earth energy imbalance (EEI) that may be, at least in last two or three decades, inferred from satellite measurements.
Should the assumption that non-radiative heat flux in form of latent heat plays a more important role than supposed in current climate models be true (see my question asked in my post of 30 Mar 2023 at 11:46 AM with respect to arguments presented in a relatively recent preprint published by Makarieva et al, https://arxiv.org/abs/2301.09998 ), the observed changes in the intensity of the global water cycle should in some extent correlate with the observed changes in the EEI.
So far, it is my feeling that the present climate models suggest that changes in hydrological regime (that may be indeed in some extent deliberately changed by various human activities, independently from other parameters driving the climate, such as GHG concentration or surface albedo) are of minor importance in comparison with the other “independent” variables. The possibility that theoretical present climate models could be perhaps tested experimentally is the idea behind the proposed “urban heat wave mitigation” project.
Please feel free to use the link and add the references you suppose ar relevant in this “discussion forum” orgpage, perhaps with a few cells summarizing your most important conclusions presented in the cited articles, your comments thereon and/or the questions that your reading perhaps raised and that could be hopefully clarified subsequently by other participants in the foreseen exchange.
Greetings
Tom
@ Tomas Kalisz
Unluckily that work of Makarieva & al. seems not to be in order and Gavin Schmidt has also stated it short and promptly.
I come to a similar conclusion through a different approach. A series of their argument premises are not credible along with what I tend to know about the same.
That is quite a pity because their intension seems to be the political defence of russian wild and pristine forests. That is also my interest wherefore they should be enlighted and adviced to build other and better arguments, not quasi- scientific ones, that seem easily disqualified from many sides and points of wiew.
As for those fameous urban heat islands;,
That seems to rule only for half of the year and half of the day and less than that in rather most of the worlds land areas.:
Forests seem rather to warm the situation and the terrain. Chop down the woods or simply set fire to it and it becomes severely chill as the gales and the storm comes down to the ground, And there will be more “evaportanspiration” with dangers of desertification where there are conditions for it.
The forests and heathers protects and improoves its own life conditions when first solidly settled. . Not because it “attracks” or “creates” rain and clouds, as it seems to be believed here, But because it binds up the soil by roots and gives it a higher capacity for keeping water in reseve for dry periods. By hitgher porousity and higher adsorption to Humus.
Sandblast on the dunes come when the pioneering wild vegetation is fought against by humans. They wanted their “lawns” with Rainbarrels instead. And stops when that is forbidden by the agricultural highschool.
I looked back into Schäffer & Schachtscyhabel Bodenkunde. Stating that Erosion of soils and topsoils
occurs mostly when a Matthias Schürle has had his will and made it all soaking wet.
Thus it comes when they discuss the world situation in terms of Nevada and Las Vegas.
Is Mike, the guy who used to post year=to-year daily CO2 increases in ppmv, still posting here?
I haven’t seen Mike in a while. Maybe he just gave up.
I’m sorry if so. I was rereading a thread from 2016 where I was nitpicking about his math and I wanted to, very belatedly, apologize. So I compounded the behavior by waiting too long.
‘”Scary’ new data on the last ice age raises concerns about future sea levels”
Kasha Patel and Chris Mooney
07:50, Apr 06 2023
“At the end of the last ice age, parts of an enormous ice sheet covering Eurasia retreated up to a startling 609 metres per day – more than the length of the Empire State Building, according to a newly-released study.”
“The rate is easily the fastest measured to date, upending what scientists previously thought were the upper speed limits for ice sheet retreat – a finding that may shed light on how quickly ice in Greenland and Antarctica could melt and raise global sea levels in today’s warming world.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/300848274/scary-new-data-on-the-last-ice-age-raises-concerns-about-future-sea-levels
This is what really worries me:
***“The rate is easily the fastest measured to date, upending what scientists previously thought were the upper speed limits for ice sheet retreat – a finding that may shed light on how quickly ice in Greenland and Antarctica could melt and raise global sea levels in today’s warming world.”***
I think we’ve grossly underestimated the rate at which all this ice can melt. I don’t believe we have nearly as much time as we think we do. I have nothing to base my opinion on other, just about every estimate scientists have made concerning time scales have been off the mark. I can easily see large chunks of the WAIS breaking off into the ocean. I don’t know what’s holding all the ice on Greenland back other than the terrain underneath the ice, maybe. Even if it can’t melt all that quickly, the grounding glaciers can separate and float off.
I hope we’re not in for a major surprise.
Chuck Hughes: – “I think we’ve grossly underestimated the rate at which all this ice can melt. I don’t believe we have nearly as much time as we think we do. I have nothing to base my opinion on other, just about every estimate scientists have made concerning time scales have been off the mark.”
I agree. It seems it’s still too early to see clearly the likely SLR exponential doubling rate. Is it perhaps somewhere between 10 to 40 years? Perhaps we will have enough data by the end of this decade for a better picture, but SLR will likely be unstoppable. I’d suggest we’ve already let the genie out of the bottle!
In the YouTube video by glaciologist Professor Jason Box, published 30 Sep 2022, titled Greenland zombie ice and committed sea level rise, duration 0:05:15, from time interval 0:04:05, a graph of Greenland projected Sea Level Rise (SLR) is displayed, comparing the IPCC’s AR6 SSP585 high emissions scenario with the 2022 Jason Box et. al. paper findings, and Jason Box says:
“Our findings in comparison to current sea level projections, confront us with a shocking reality: The much larger, already locked-in sea level rise, than what ice sheet models project by end-of-century, even under high carbon emissions. Our numbers are twice as large, and don’t even include future warming. The comparison reinforces the likelihood that ice sheet models don’t deliver ice quickly enough, and for a number of known reasons, like today’s models don’t realistically treat underwater melting, bare ice darkening, ice internal heating from increasing meltwater infiltration, and basal lubrication, to name a few.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHbZysQYRO4
I think it’s worth revisiting the 2016 Hansen et. al. paper titled Ice melt, sea level rise and superstorms: evidence from paleoclimate data, climate modeling, and modern observations that 2 °C global warming could be dangerous. Section 5.1: Ice sheet mass loss and sea level rise, begins with:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/16/3761/2016/
There was a paper on this years ago that I have mentioned occasionally as part of the risk-first approach to climate, et al. This not new but it is more detailed.
Of course, none of you listened. You’re never to learn policies cannot wait for more perfect science or we’ll never be able to act. Thus, risk analysis is THE key to accurate analysis overall.
You, collectively, still won’t listen, though, unfortunately.
K: Of course, none of you listened.
BPL: Of course. We just don’t have your sheer vision.
The ERA5 reanalysis has reported for March with a global SAT anomaly of +0.51ºC, a big rise on the Jan & Feb anomalies (+0.25ºC & +0.29ºC).
March 2023 was the second warmest March on the ERA5 SAT record, below 2016 (+0.63ºC) and above (just) 2019 (+0.51ºC), 2017 (+0.50ºC) & 2020 (+0.49ºC), with 6th warmest 2022 (+0.39ºC), 7th 2018 (+0.27ºC) & 8th 2010 (+0.27ºC).
March 2023 sits 11th in the all-month anomaly ranking.
Despite the big rise in the March anomaly, 2023 still sits as the 5th warmest start to the year, although now closer to 4th-place than to 6th-place. A year-on-year of ERA5 monthly anomalies is posted here Graph 2b
…….. Jan-Mar Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +0.62ºC … … … +0.44ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +0.56ºC … … … +0.47ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +0.47ºC … … … +0.34ºC … … … 4th
2019 .. +0.37ºC … … … +0.40ºC … … … 3rd
2023 .. +0.35ºC
2022 .. +0.30ºC … … … +0.30ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.26ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 7th
2010 .. +0.23ºC … … … +0.13ºC … … … 9th
2015 .. +0.21ºC … … … +0.26ºC … … … 8th
2021 .. +0.16ºC … … … +0.27ºC … … … 6th
2007 .. +0.15ºC … … … +0.04ºC … … … 15th
The ENSO predictions are now strongly suggesting an El Niño from July onward with a resulting boost to global temperature anomalies from late 2023. Perhaps 2023 will end up as a top-three warmest year.
My response to Geoff Miell:
As far as “ideology” is concerned, it’s your defensive responses, replete with personal attacks and empty rhetoric, that suggest an ideologically driven bias, whereas I am content to stick with the evidence. As a long time progressive Democrat I have no political ax to grind regarding this issue, only a sense of responsibility to the facts, critical thinking and the scientific method.
The “hiatus” that troubles you so is not some fantasy dreamed up by “deniers”, but a widely accepted phenomenon endorsed by a great many climatologists who have exerted a tremendous amount of time and effort in vain attempts to explain it away (see http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/updated-list-of-64-excuses-for-18-26.html ). To their credit, the authors of the Fyfe et al. paper have been courageous enough to accept the facts and report them honestly. The evidence is clearly there in the data registered by the UAH and RSS satellites plus the latest HadCrut results.
And yes, there was some slight degree of warming during the “hiatus,” which accounts for those “record breaking” years. However, it was the rapid rise in temperatures over the previous 20 years that produced the baseline making all those records possible.
You can pontificate till you’re blue in the face but the facts remain: no evidence that CO2 emissions were responsible for the temp. rise during the first 40 years of the previous century. No reason to hold CO2 responsible for any warming during the following 40 years, as there WAS no warming during that period. No reason to deny the reality of the 18 year “hiatus” during which temperatures rose only slightly while CO2 levels soared. As for the temperature spike subsequent to the hiatus, it’s generally attributed to the effects of a major El Nino despite your denial. As for what followed, temperatures have been gradually subsiding since then — see. for example https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend
In any case, after a period of over 130 years wherein all but 20 show no correlation, it’s far too late to claim a long-term trend based on events of the last few years.
As for Rignot’s presentation, you really must read the blog post I linked you to in my previous post: http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/11/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-12-what.html
Victor, regarding the supposed “hiatus” in warming of our climate system, you accidentally presented several non-scientist sites instead of reputable science sources.
Please refer instead to the report by Karl et al, “Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus” in the journal Science on June 4, 2015. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa5632
Abstract: “Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature.”
If you can’t get to that report, please check the following NOAA article, which states the following about trends in planetary heat content during that “hiatus” some wanted to believe in. Here’s a bit from it:
“For the 27-year period 1993 to 2019, they found 53 percent of the global ocean exhibited statistically significant warming trends versus 3 percent of the ocean showing significant cooling trends. For the 52-year period from 1968 to 2019, the imbalance grew markedly: 72 to 79 percent of the ocean area showed warming, while only 1 to 3 percent exhibited cooling. When trends were estimated over shorter 5-year periods, the areas and imbalances were much smaller, with 24% warming and 17% cooling. ”
That’s here: https://research.noaa.gov/article/ArtMID/587/ArticleID/2643/Ocean-warming-trends-dwarf-cooling-trends-NOAA-analysis-finds
Just thinking. I’m wondering if anyone has done an article on all the other things the deniers have said about climate change. Actual quotations. I remember for the loooongest time they claimed that there was NO global warming. Flat out denied it. Singer and the others. All their most emphatic statements and how long they made them.
NOW they claim that, ok, there is C.C. but it’s anything, anything but and the hundreds of billions of barrels of FF we’ve added to the atmosphere, (cause, we just love our cars, and will gladly sacrifice the future of the planet if we can have our fun now).
Also, all their declamations and shenanigans against clean energy (meaning, primarily, solar)? Even though it’s getting better all the time.
I know Skeptical Science has a long list of “reasons”, but I wonder if there is a combined list of quotations?
Hmm, one of these two quotations, or part of it, from former astronauts would make a good sub under the banner on Real Climate:
“On the one hand, we can see how indescribably beautiful the planet that we have been is, but on the other hand, we can really, clearly see how fragile it is…. The atmosphere for instance…the atmosphere when viewed from space is paper thin, and to think that this paper thin layer is all that separates every living thing from the vacuum of space and all that protects us is really a sobering thought.” ~ Ron Garan, Astronaut
“For the first time in my life I saw the horizon as a curved line. It was accentuated by a thin seam of dark blue light—our atmosphere. Obviously this was not the ocean of air I had been told it was so many times in my life. I was terrified by its fragile appearance.” ~ Ulf Merbold, Astronaut
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/a-glimpse-of-divinity/
I’d like to take time-out from all the bickering over sea level, hiatus, hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. to express my growing alarm over all the increasingly paranoid chatter I see just about everywhere concerning the supposedly “existential threat” posed by “climate change.” It’s getting seriously out of hand, folks. Everywhere we are being reminded that, according to “the experts” the Earth will soon be subject to out of control warming trends so extreme as to threaten life as we know it, eventually bringing about the extinction of human life altogether. Over and over, year after year, we are hearing the same mantra: according to “the science” we are headed for certain disaster unless we act NOW to radically reduce the burning of fossil fuels. That “now” came and went years ago, but that doesn’t matter any more to the true believers of today than it has so many times to doomsayers of the past, all too willing to post-date when their dire predictions failed.
I’ve been at pains on this forum and elsewhere to question certain basic tenets of this so-called “science,” but my efforts have (predictably enough) been in vain. What stands out especially is the serious discrepancies between the evidence and what is being claimed. In just about every case, when one consults the raw, unprocessed, data it appears to be at odds with what the mainstream science has claimed. Only a highly trained “real” scientist, apparently, has the ability to spin such unpromising straw into climate change gold. One notorious case in point is the notion, based on a highly misleading scattergram, that CO2 emissions are correlated with global temperatures. For my analysis of that claim, see http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2018/10/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-8-tale.html
Another is the claim that the warming hiatus beginning in the 1940s was due to aerosol cooling – for my debunking of that one, see http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html
We are not talking, unfortunately, about some arcane academic dispute, but an issue fraught with the greatest consequences for the future of all humanity. Indeed, a growing movement, sparked by a veritable children’s crusade, is calling for mass “nonviolent” resistance on a worldwide scale, a movement grounded in sheer panic that could easily morph into a serious attempt at revolution that might well turn extremely violent. Indeed nothing less than a worldwide revolution of the most radical kind would be capable of turning off the spigot to the extent now being demanded.
The insanity of such a movement becomes clear when one considers the consequences: a shutdown of the transportation network that provides the world with its food, clothing, and other essential commodities; a shutdown of the oil and gas resources that provide billions of people with fuel, electricity, lighting, heating, cooling etc.
Think for a moment of what would happen if, by some miracle, it might be possible to reach “net zero” at some not too distant time without incurring the dire consequences listed above. What then? We sit down and wait for 30, 40, 50, years, 100 years, for business as usual to resume – for hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. to abate, for Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves to re-form, sea levels go down, and all once again be well with the world, as it was before all those greedy oil barons took over???? Has anyone ever conceived such a truly insane Utopian fantasy?
Victor: – “I’ve been at pains on this forum and elsewhere to question certain basic tenets of this so-called “science,” but my efforts have (predictably enough) been in vain.”
US petroleum geologist Art Berman tweeted on 10 Apr 2023:
https://twitter.com/aeberman12/status/1645108726813081604
As much as I’d like the science to be wrong on the climate crisis, overwhelming & compelling evidence/data I see indicates otherwise – see my earlier comments to you.
Victor: – “Think for a moment of what would happen if, by some miracle, it might be possible to reach “net zero” at some not too distant time without incurring the dire consequences listed above.”
‘Net-zero’ is not enough. Climate change has arrived and it will get worse, and how much worse depends on what we/humanity do this decade especially, this year and today.
Either we/humanity find ways to drive fossil fuels out of business ASAP, or human civilisation will be driven out of business by global heating.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/04/the-summary-for-policymakers-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-change-sixth-assessment-reports-synthesis/#comment-810689
V: The insanity of such a movement becomes clear when one considers the consequences: a shutdown of the transportation network that provides the world with its food, clothing, and other essential commodities; a shutdown of the oil and gas resources that provide billions of people with fuel, electricity, lighting, heating, cooling etc.
BPL: Except that no one is calling for an overnight shutdown of any of those things, only that their energy sources be switched over to renewables. So stop spreading lies.
Victor.
“Another is the claim that the warming hiatus beginning in the 1940s was due to aerosol cooling – for my debunking of that one,”
http://amoleintheground.blogspot.com/2021/03/thoughts-on-climate-change-part-10.html
You haven’t debunked the claim. You were shown copious evidence that aerosols caused a cooling effect mid last century. Most people would have accepted this and moved on. Don/t be a flat earther Victor. You’re smarter than that.
“What then? We sit down and wait for 30, 40, 50, years, 100 years, for business as usual to resume – for hurricanes, floods, droughts, etc. to abate, for Antarctic and Greenland ice shelves to re-form, sea levels go down, and all once again be well with the world, as it was before all those greedy oil barons took over???? Has anyone ever conceived such a truly insane Utopian fantasy?”
The science doesnt say those things. Your comments are a strawman. The science says if we stop emitting CO2 warming will stop after a short delay and sea level rise will not be nearly as much as precited (1 – 2 metres by end of this century).
Some sea level rise is locked in for millenia. In fact the planet is in a constant state of flux regarding sea level rise with only relatively short periods of stability and this is the normal pattern and we have to live with that. So we are not seeking some sort of utopian climate that is completely stable (if thats what you mean).
The PROBLEM is the rapid acceleration of sea level rise caused by anthropogenic emissions with massive levels of sea level rise possible within our lifetimes or children’s lifetimes. I have a design degree so Im aware of the problems this can cause.
In fact personally I see climate mitigation more as a problem solving exercise rather than seeking a utopia, although a small number of people on the fringes do tend to highjack the issue to create some sort of social utopia. But this doesn’t define the climate mitigation issue. And they are not entirely wrong either. A newly developed energy system has to be inclusive and not push costs unfairly onto low income people.
And what do we do when the world runs out of fossil fuels, or they become very expensive to extract? We will have to transition to another energy source whether solar, wind, nuclear or whatever. And the transition will be disruptive and painful, but ultimately its unavoidable.
In the 19th century the world burned timber for energy until it ran out, and so it had to transition to burning coal. There was no choice unless you want stagnation. The industrial revolution destroyed a whole lot of occupations but that is the price of progress.
Energy transitions can be managed to minimise pain. Ignoring the climate problem will certainly create pain, and costs that will fall on poor people and poor countries the most. Remember that since you say you support progressive politics.
Weaktor, the problem is that the only supports your position has are your stubborn refusal to understand even the most rudimentary statistics and your embrace of the fallacy of argument from consequences.
Reality doesn’t care what you or I or anyone else thinks. It is like the story of one of Von Neumann’s students who complained that he was having trouble understanding a mathematical argument. Von Neumann replied, “Young man. You don’t understand mathematics. You get used to it.”
Weaktor says: “I’ve been at pains on this forum and elsewhere to question certain basic tenets of this so-called “science,” but my efforts have (predictably enough) been in vain.”
In that case, I think you should leave this site for good. Obviously, you’re not getting anywhere here and your comments aren’t appreciated by the scientific community, so you should start your own blog and invite everyone to visit you. We’d be more than happy to come drop in and offer our assistance. Who knows? You may gain a devout following and be able to turn it into a business.
I’ll begin with what seems to be your central concern.
V. We are not talking, unfortunately, about some arcane academic dispute, but an issue fraught with the greatest consequences for the future of all humanity.
J: Agreed, except that I would include the rest of the life on this Earth.
V: Indeed, a growing movement, sparked by a veritable children’s crusade, is calling for mass “nonviolent” resistance on a worldwide scale, a movement grounded in sheer panic that could easily morph into a serious attempt at revolution that might well turn extremely violent.
J: How differently we see the world! Panic ensues when people emerge from a complacent state to perceive that their survival is threatened. Yes, they can get violent. Better to recognize the threat early and avert it. The threat is climate change strong and abrupt enough to disrupt our infrastructure and the very nature we depend on for our ultimate survival. I would not expect climate change to cause human extinction by itself, but it would contribute to existing human conflicts, and thus make life a lot more difficult and painful. When we consider the consequences of a COVID epidemic with a fatality rate well under 1%, I don’t want to see what would happen if we ended up with 10%, 50%, or 90% population reduction in a short time. Those are still well short of human extinction.
Now, back to science, but not in a lot of detail.
V: What stands out especially is the serious discrepancies between the evidence and what is being claimed.
J: Your idea of “evidence” bears only a superficial resemblance to actual science, insofar as it provides you with some points to argue about without advancing understanding. Science advances our understanding about the natural world through a constructive process of developing ideas and obtaining evidence that may challenge or deepen those ideas. It also includes safeguards intended to keep us from fooling ourselves.
V: One notorious case in point is the notion, based on a highly misleading scattergram, that CO2 emissions are correlated with global temperatures.
J: A great example of what I’m referring to. This was discussed in depth back in Dec. 2021 on this forum. You haven’t responded to any of the substantive critiques. Some of these are
a) grossly incorrect use of “correlation” to suit your own personal definition, at odds even with your own
chosen data set,
b) failure to appreciate that correlation can only apply to linear relationships, while the climate system is non-linear in a way that varies with the time scale,
c) ignoring other very important sources of information, such as the relationship between GHGs and climate over geologic timescales, or oceanic heat content, (even if you don’t believe modeling or radiation physics in general)
d) a failure to provide any reason for global temperatures to remain elevated and keep rising over the decades, if one excludes GHGs from the explanation.
V: “Think for a moment of what would happen if, by some miracle, it might be possible to reach “net zero” at some not too distant time…” “We sit down and wait for 30, 40, 50, years, 100 years, for business as usual to resume…?”
J: No, we have already introduced such a massive blast of CO2 into the system that you can tack on a couple of zeroes onto your time estimates before we get back to “business as usual.” I base that in part on the solid geological evidence that during the last interglacial (when solar radiation at the poles was higher than now, and CO2 was relatively elevated but a lot lower than now) sea levels of at least 2m higher than present, and at times 9m, for well over 5,000 years. That’s the time it takes continental ice sheets to adjust to GHGs. We’re pushing the climate system a lot harder than happened the last go-around 120,000 years ago, with 500 ppm CO2 likely before we can stop ourselves. That puts us up to levels not seen in millions of years. From a human perspective, it’s a permanent change. And it’s so big that massive disruption is guaranteed. Just how massive is still somewhat in our hands.
Is the record 70 feet of snow at Snowbird Ski Resort in Utah a result of increased moisture in the atmosphere due to global warming? Will increased CO2 and moisture in the atmosphere result in increased plant growth absorbing the CO2 added by humans, and acting as a self-correcting system?
https://www.wunderground.com/video/top-stories/snowbird-ski-resort-faces-challenges-of-70-feet-of-snow
We’re removing more vegetation than can grow back, especially trees. Clearing land and chopping down the Amazon Rainforest cuts off the water cycle, so you’re going to get massive flooding or prolonged drought and excessive heat, which damage soil and plants. All your topsoil erodes off into rivers and streams, and then the microbes come out.
CO2 helps plant growth, but excessive heat and flooding cancel out any benefits to that. The only thing that will thrive will be invasive plants and stuff nobody is going to want to ingest. Crows should do pretty well feeding off of dead humans and animals. Rats and cockroaches will get the leftovers, and microbes will be able to reproduce at exponential rates. How does that sound?
KIA: Will increased CO2 and moisture in the atmosphere result in increased plant growth absorbing the CO2 added by humans, and acting as a self-correcting system?
BPL: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/earth-stopped-getting-greener-20-years-ago/
Hr. Knowitall
You say it, and I shall not mention anything about blind chicken this time.
Snow in Utah follow from warm water somewhere else, and the warmer the water ….
But then once again.. where does it rain? .. in the plain” in SpaIn ?
That is decided on by the http://www.Jørungandr the large worlds serpent that lies around the whole world and bites itself in the tail by weak forces that can slip and brake, who is quite unpredictabe even to science then, allthough they have him suspected all the time. In cleartext it depends on how the winds are blowing, that may change from year to year. Sudden and unexpected things may thus happen.
That CO2- with H2O and warmth- system,.. yes, it is a typical natural self correcting system, a typical system with negative feedbacks thus rather stable reliable from natures side. But then very disturbed by human activities in recent time.
I give you a Haud illaudabilis for this, Mr Knowitall.
Mr. Kia, you ask if the increase in CO2 will lead to feedbacks that will stop the increase in CO2.
You ask that while atmospheric CO2 has been increasing every year of the Keeling measurements – and that is with plants absorbing what they can, and the ocean absorbing what it can. So it seems plants won’t spontaneously save us from the effects of our actions.
But it reminds me of Lindzen’s failed Iris hypothesis, where warming in the tropics from our CO2 would reduce high-level clouds and thus speed enough IR to space to save us from the effects of our actions. Back when he suggested that, I wondered how that could be the case, since there was already evidence of much higher greenhouse warmings in past elevated CO2 events – with temperatures that showed no sign of an iris effect saving the day.
Last month I came across the MDPI-published paper Dengler, Joachim, and John Reid. 2023. “Emissions and CO2 Concentration—An Evidence Based Approach” Atmosphere 14, no. 3: 566 on Judith Curry’s blog. I decided to do some analysis of some parts of the paper to see if it made any sense. It turns out that the incompetence in this paper runs deep. They have a figure they use to support the notion that “relative CO2 absorption (%)” has increased linearly at by 2.5% with CO2 concentration. But It’s completely bogus:
1. The units of the y-axis should be ppm, not percent. It’s the slope of the graph that would have units of ppm/ppm and thus could be described as a percent.
2. The paper calculated a term Ni, which they defined as “the global natural net emissions during year i.” However, after examining their calculations and comparing them to the 2021 carbon budget, what they called Ni was actually the budget imbalance – that is, the difference between the estimated sources and sinks. What they’re calling “relative CO2 absorption” is actually total sinks minus the budget imbalance.
3. The 2021 carbon budget contains annual values. During the early years, CO2 spent multiple years at the same CO2 ppm. During the more recent years, CO2 increased by multiple ppm every year. This paper just plotted annual values with atmospheric CO2 on the x-axis. If you look at the graph, you can see that they did this by the clumping of data close together at low ppm while at higher ppm, the data points are farther apart. This introduces bias into the slope of the graph, making the earlier values too low and the later values too high. The authors should have added values from multiple years at the same ppm and adjusted the later values for the fact that they count for multiple CO2 concentrations.
4. The authors performed smoothing on their data before plotting the graph, inflating their r^2 value.
I’ve seen some comments here making critiques of some of the other baseless assumptions in this paper, so I thought I’d add to what they did here.
https://woodromances.blogspot.com/2023/03/a-paper-was-published-recently-in-mdpi.html
I don’t know if it’s worth trying to get the paper retracted.
Scott, most crappy papers are not retracted. Rather they prove to be of no use to the scientific community, and so they sit there like a dog turd on a New York sidewalk on a hot summer’s day. Now, every once in a while, an unwary, naive pedestrian may step in said paper and raise a stink, but if scientists spent all their efforts correcting the morons, they wouldn’t get anything done.
Unfortunately, however, there is a more pernicious effort–the paper that is utter bullshit while seeming to answer all questions and tell the frightened layman what he wants to hear–that the threat isn’t real. Bullshit, unfortunately, lives forever, because it makes no falsifiable prediction and only tells reassuring Just-So stories.
Scott J Simmons,
The grand work of Dengler & Reid was indeed given the once-over and a big thumbs down here at RealClimate in last month’s UV thread. It is pretty obviously a pile of nonsense. That Judy Curry doesn’t see what’s wrong with it shows how utterly useless her comments have become. That it has now been apparently peer reviewed (presumably by the peer group of numpties and climate change deniers inhabited by Dengler & Reid) and now published by Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute only adds to a substantial catalog of controversy that has been stacked up against that publisher.
We really need to start naming and shaming the journals that publish this crap. The way you train a puppy not to crap in the house is by rubbing their nose in it.
IMO, #3 is not credibly interpreted as incompetence, but rather malice. Put plainly, I think that they were cooking the graph.
On this episode, we meet with author and paleobiologist Peter Ward.
Ward helps us catalogue the various risks facing Earth’s oceans, how the Atlantic Ocean’s currents are slowing due to warming, what happened in Earth’s history when ocean currents stopped, and why a reduction in elephant poaching is contributing to the destruction of coral reefs.
https://youtu.be/OS4FIoOKKfc
Here’s the complete interview:
https://youtu.be/8eM1aakTzMw
Sigh. Victor is just so certain of himself and his ability to judge the science. But unfortunately he is just a deluded old fool. For years he has made claims that the experts are mistaken even though he has repeatedly shown on this site that has failed to understand even the most basic science. I guess in a way this shouldn’t be a surprise because he has no formal training in the physical sciences (nor statistics); however, one would think that one of his supposed keen intellect would have made an honest attempt to understand it, at least the basics. But no he hasn’t. In all these years on this site he hasn’t shown a capacity of learning a damned thing while he professes to be the smartest person in the room. It’s sad.
A simple example of Victor’s ignorance from not too long ago in his never ending discussion on correlation was this: Nice try, CC. Since atmospheric CO2 can only heat the ocean by heating the atmosphere first (duh!), then the lack of any long-term correlation between CO2 levels and atmospheric temperatures precludes any long-term correlation between CO2 levels and the heat content of the ocean. Note that Victor even uses a “(duh!)” in his response to show his disdain and his deluded sense of superior knowledge and intellect…yet of course his statement was completely and unequivocally wrong.
Surprisingly, once the foolishness of his statement was pointed out he did admit to his error, he is magnanimous after all, right? However, did he then learn from this? Did he acknowledge the importance of the oh so obvious correlation of rising sea temperatures to rising CO2 levels? No, of course not. And did he then admit that since CO2 actually raises surfaces temperatures on land and sea which then in turn warms the atmosphere as an indirect effect that this correlation is even more meaningful? No, of course not. Apparently he is way too emotionally invested in his “there is only a small period of time where there is a correlation between rising CO2 and rising temperatures” meme.
Furthermore, as pointed out by nigelj, he also apparently has no understanding of el Nino and the simple fact that an el Nino event has zero influence on temperatures in subsequent years. As such, he feels, incorrectly of course, that these years can be ignored. His whole correlation discussion is silly and no matter how many times he has been told the flaws in his thinking, by experts no less, he continues to double down and spout his foolishness. For years. For Victor, sadly, there is no real discussion or desire to actually learn something about the science unless it supports his delusion.
Rinse lather repeat. It never ends.
A while ago I provided a link to an interesting youtube lecture by a Dr. Yong, who holds a Ph.D. in physics from Monash University — https://youtu.be/P5HyDp_Jgd8
Since I’m not a physicist I requested help from anyone posting here with a sufficient background in physics to evaluate his claims. To this date no one has responded. So I’ll give it another try.
Some excerpts from the accompanying transcript:
28. In passing, Dr Harde’s rigorous line-by-line calculations show the surface temperature only increases less than 0.3 to 0.6 K due to CO2 doubling, that is over 5 times smaller the IPCC’s official value 3.2 K. That’s why his new results are ignored by the main stream climate researchers.
30. So, you can see climate modeling is an intelligible number game, because they know how much temperature change they want for the global warming, but just dress “the temperature change” up with a new cloth called “radiative forcing.”
36. Look at this state-of-the-art diagram of the so-called Global Power Budget, the downward longwave radiation at the surface is as high as 342, which is slightly stronger than the shortwave radiation from the sun at the top of the atmosphere! This is insane.
38. To summarize briefly, radiative forcing has been introduced in attempt to quantify the imagined Greenhouse Effect for climate modeling, but the related theory belongs to a psychological thriller that can hardly be justified by basic laws in thermodynamics.
Since the transcript is incomplete, it’s necessary to view the entire lecture to follow his very detailed argument.
I can see just enough to know it is obviously baloney and a waste of time. That’s likely why no one has responded.
Dr Harde’s rigorous line-by-line calculations show the surface temperature only increases less than 0.3 to 0.6 K due to CO2 doubling, that is over 5 times smaller the IPCC’s official value 3.2 K. That’s why his new results are ignored by the main stream climate researchers.
LOL, Dr. Harde is well known at Real Climate. He is a fraud and that is why his results are ignored by mainstream climate researchers.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2017/02/something-harde-to-believe/
https://retractionwatch.com/2018/04/23/flawed-climate-science-paper-exposed-potential-weaknesses-in-peer-review-process/
So, you can see climate modeling is an intelligible number game, because they know how much temperature change they want for the global warming, but just dress “the temperature change” up with a new cloth called “radiative forcing.”
This is utter BS. They know how much temperature change they want . . . Really? No “they” don’t. And, radiative forcing is well defined and not made up. Radiative forcings determine how the energy comes into the earth system and back out again.
Look at this state-of-the-art diagram of the so-called Global Power Budget, the downward longwave radiation at the surface is as high as 342, which is slightly stronger than the shortwave radiation from the sun at the top of the atmosphere! This is insane.
It’s actually a measurable quantity. So no, it is not insane. Why doesn’t he know this?
Interesting that the Youtube site of Yong Tuition doesn’t share much, if any, information and background on Dr. Yong nor a full name to help one check up elsewhere on his background. In fact, a fairly thorough search of the internet could not find a single item on a Dr. Yong with a Phd in physics from Monash University in Australia. There is no sign of any publications, no curricula vitae, no list of qualifications. Nothing. Nada. Even checked Linkedin Australia and no such person is on Linkedin there, which seems a bit odd. So, no such person seems to exist other than on Yong Tuition. Wonder why that is?
Dear Victor,
to my best understanding, under “radiative forcing”, it is understood the slow rise in the mean low of the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR). This rise is assigned to the rising concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases.
I do not know yet how precisely the rise in the DLR is tracked experimentally. I am aware that the values of energy flows given in various modifications of the Trenberth’s diagram are averages over one year and over entire Earth surface, and it can be quite challenging to make such averaging experimentally.
I think, however, that the theoretical concept is relatively clear. Due to the existence of the DLR (that sums with the shortwave sunlight absorbed by Earth surface), the upwelling longwave radiation (ULR) may be indeed well above the value of the sunlight energy flow.
I asked the same questions as you and finally found a comprehensive and understandable explanation in the textbook Physical Climatology (2nd edition, 2016) written by prof. Dennis Hartmann.
You can find a very short excerpt from this book in my public orgpage
https://orgpad.com/s/VhvfDd5uRIP
that focuses on a related question in what extent the non-radiative heat flow (by convection and latent heat transport) changes the temperature difference between Earth surface and top of the atmopsphere (TOA).
Greetings
Tom
Correction:
Please read “in the mean FLOW of the downwelling longwave radiation (DLR)”.
I apologize for this unpleasant typing error.
Victor the Troll,
An amusing little video you bring us to watch.
So we see an idiot that translates Radiative Forcing = “the difference between the TOA longwave flux with and without the greenhouse absorber” into Radiative Forcing = “the difference between the terrestrial radiation intensity, presumably detected near the surface, and the outgoing radiation intensity detected at the TOA.” To paraphrase the words of this lunatic Yong later in his video, “This translation is insane.”
The idiot rambles on with further “insane” suggestions, for instance, that the ‘present participle’ “Forcing” is deliberately used in climatology to grab society’s attention and inflame passions. (At this point I’m wondering if this Yong character is actually a comedian.) Yet the idiot rather too-often refers to his associate Hermann Harde who’s own stupidity has been the subject of posts here at RC (eg here). According to the idiot Yong, Harde is ignored because his results are too radical, not because they are simply wrong.
I’m not sure why the idiot picks on Gregory et al (2004) ‘A new method for diagnosing radiative forcing and climate sensitivity’ which describes a method for calculating ECS in GCM and does not redefine the RF concept.
The idiot’s puzzlement at the RF definition perhaps stems from his inability to read and understand Ramaswamy et al (2018) although he does manage to display the title of this paper in his little video (& I still do harbour the idea that this video is not just bad comedy).
The idiot’s final flourish (& what he apparently is describing as “insane”) is the way that back radiation at the surface is shown as being greater than the solar flux at the TOA, as this graphic he uses shows. Earlier in his video the idiot states “Tell me if I am wrong” when suggesting an electrical amplifier needs to have a power input to power its output. This is of course correct but the analogy with climate is bonkers. The output from our planet is all at the TOA not at the planet surface where the back radiation can be entirely decoupled from the TOA energy balance, “balance” being the operative word, a “balance” upset by RFs.
So Yong, you are entirely wrong.
Well done you!!!
First you should probably read the relevant sections of an actual textbook, don’t you think?
The IPCC Summary for Policy Makers is high level. The technical summary is more detailed without getting too ridiculous. You’d be looking for TS.3 Understanding the Climate System Response and Implications for Limiting Global Warming (https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/chapter/technical-summary/). I’m sure you’ll never read the full report, it not being a youtube screed, but even more detailed is there and pointed to from the Technical Summary.
Of course that takes significantly more skull sweat than watching youtube screeds and thinking drivel is science. (BTW: Care to tell us about his publishing history in climate journals?)
Information regarding Dr. Yong’s background and research can be found here, where he is identified as Y.C. Zhong — https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yc-Zhong
As the accompanying photo makes clear, this is the same person who’s identified himself online as “Yong Tuition”. According to this website he has several published papers to his credit.
Which does NOT necessarily make him a bona fide authority on climate and climate change. I requested assistance in evaluating his claims by any posting here who have the qualifications I lack, and want to thank those who have posted above. Based on your responses, I must agree that there do seem to be serious problems with Dr. Yong’s presentations.
ResearchGate provides a list of papers for which he authored or was a co-author, but nothing else about his background although it shows alleged expertise in “resonance absorption and emission” along with “absorption spectroscopy”. A further internet search for a Y. C. Zhong again turns up absolutely nothing. ResearchGate does show an apparent association with an Erichen Consulting, but a search for that organization again turns up nothing.
When viewing science information from YouTube or when generally reading anything on the internet for the science it is always wise to check for independent information on the author to help one make a judgement of how much credence to give to what is stated. When no background information is found it obviously doesn’t mean there is a total lack of expertise, but it should cause one to be wary and skeptical, especially if the author expresses nonconventional thinking. Even if you find the author has expertise and perhaps is somewhat well respected, searching for other information to either support or debunk what the author claims is also a wise move. This should be common sense.
“36. Look at this state-of-the-art diagram of the so-called Global Power Budget, the downward longwave radiation at the surface is as high as 342, which is slightly stronger than the shortwave radiation from the sun at the top of the atmosphere! This is insane. …” – Yong Zhong, PhD
The graphic to which he is referring is here:
https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/earth-as-a-system/energy_budget_image
He clearly has little to no understanding of it. The 340 is incoming solar radiation. Short wave. Of the 340, which is an insane 2 less than 342 (his claim,) 75 is reflected by the atmosphere and 25 is reflected by the surface. In the earth’s system, it warms nothing.
So now the 342 is 102 bigger than 240. Shazam, 2 has grown to 102: total physical insanity. Of course, no scientific instrument can find the source of the 342. For that we would apparently need a Physichiatrist.
GISTEMP has posted the LOTI anomaly for March, at +1.21ºC a big jump up on Jan (+0.87ºC) & Feb (+0.98ºC).
March 2023 is the 2nd warmest March on record, below March 2016 (+1.36ºC) and above 2019, 2020 & 2019 (all +1.17ºC), 2022 (+1.05ºC), 2015 (+0.96ºC) & 2010 (+0.92ºC).
March 2023 has the 4th highest anomaly in the all-month record.
2023 also sits in 4th place in the warmest start-of-the-year rankings.
…….. Jan-Mar Ave … Annual Ave ..Annual ranking
2016 .. +1.30ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 2nd
2020 .. +1.19ºC … … … +1.02ºC … … … 1st
2017 .. +1.11ºC … … … +0.92ºC … … … 4th
2023 .. +1.02ºC
2019 .. +1.02ºC … … … +0.98ºC … … … 3rd
2022 .. +0.95ºC … … … +0.89ºC … … … 6th
2015 .. +0.91ºC … … … +0.90ºC … … … 5th
2018 .. +0.85ºC … … … +0.85ºC … … … 8th
2010 .. +0.84ºC … … … +0.72ºC … … … 10th
2007 .. +0.82ºC … … … +0.67ºC … … … 13th
The https://Climate.Gov charts with climate data products are useful, yet there are constrained to a single website since the images are not dynamically updated (thumbnails do not share the same naming).
https://www.climate.gov/climatedashboard
I wrote them about this last year. Also searching the WordPress Plugin database from your site backend does not yield similar content. Perhaps someone here has an idea on how to display the latest climate data charts on a website through computation alone?
[Response: John Kennedy has been putting these resources together: https://jjk-code-otter.github.io/dashboard-dashboard/ – gavin]
A cautious, preliminary prediction of low ASI over 2023~2025. In August 2015 I put forth a theory El Nino modes of ENSO affected ASI minimums. The mechanisms seemed rather straightforward to me, though it was said there is no statistical correlation between ENs and ASI minimums. I theorized warm water associated with ENs, and warm air, must affect the sea ice since global atmospheric temps and oceanic temps rise during an EN and the flow of water through the Arctic is from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Of course, any effects from atmospheric temps would be out of phase with oceanic temps; it takes far more time for ocean currents to move energy than it does for air currents. Also, the heat content of the air is a small fraction of the potential heat content of water.
All of this is well-understood by any readers of this site, I am sure. What is less known is the mechanism I described in Aug. 2015 of Pacific oceanic energy affecting ASI was confirmed in research conducted by Scripps. Their “Heat Bomb” paper aligns perfectly with the EN/ASI theory.
My analysis in 2015 found a completely neutral correlation between ASI minimums and La Nina, but around a 65% correlation with El Ninos, IIRC. Naturally, the effect should be more pronounced with large ENs, which are not so common, around every 20 years or so according to this article: https://www.livescience.com/ocean-surface-temperature-record, which is about the record SSTs currently occurring. Basically, 2016’s relative low was easy to predict given it was expected to be a large EN and ended up being the warmest ever. (See article linked above.)
To review, the theory is there is a lag between when ENs begin and peak and when they more directly affect ASI. I think researchers have missed this for the simple reason their window was too narrow. For an EN that forms in a given year, the expectation is there could be a significant ASI impact that year or the next two summers, with the following summer being the most likely.
As many here will know, predicting ASI Extent is notoriously difficult. Weather conditions dominate the overall outcome of any given year, along with such patterns as the Arctic Oscillation, wind direction (Pacific > Atlantic) and intensity driving export via Fram Strait, etc., while climate influences affect the overall trend.
Of course, ASI lows in the middle and latter half of this decade are a bit of a no-brainer as overall temperatures rise, the sun cycle peaks, ENs occur, etc., I won’t be alone in this – though how many will be able to claim they called specific years 17 months early? Well, maybe a lot. LOL. Here are my scenarios, subject to revision as the intensity of the EN clarifies and this years’ ASIE predictably falls relative to the past few years. (What goes up, must come down. Not much of a prediction, eh? More of an expectation 2023 will be below the average of the last three years.)
Scenario 1: 2023 EN intensity is moderate: We would expect lower ASIE than the previous 3 years, but likely not in the range between 2016 and 2012.
2024 would see a low below 2023, but how low would be difficult to predict, though high SSTs in general might be enough to push the extent toward 2016.
Scenario 1b: 2023 EN intensity is moderate: 2012-ish conditions, e.g. winds, export, high June insolation and a large cyclone would make 2016-ish levels very likely, I’d think.
Scenario 2 2023 EN intensity is strong: By itself, this should be enough to push 2023 toward 2016, but not as far as 2020.
2024 would see a low below 2016 and perhaps 2020, small chance of hitting @ 2012.
Scenario 2b: 2023 EN intensity is strong: 2012-ish conditions, e.g. winds, export, high June insolation and a large cyclone would make 2012-ish levels possible.
**For all scenarios above effects stated for 2024 could be delayed to 2025, though much more likely in 2024 in the case of a very strong or extreme EN.**
Scenario 3 2023 EN intensity is extreme: Kiss 80% of ASI goodbye in either 2024 or 2025.
Underlying all of the above is the fact that climate changes are becoming ever more rapid and thus ever less predictable. Buckle up.
@ Killian
“The flow of waqter through the arctic is fromm the e pacific to the atlantic”
No,, that is a misconsception for many., that confuses and blocks the understanding of more relevant natural effects and currents..
The polar high pressure turns clockvice, thus there is a steady round and round clockvice iceand sea current there and it explains the Grønland glacier in the arctic zonne with onland north atlantic easterly winds, and the obvious lack of huge heavy glaciers on the northeastern canadian islands even further nort than Grønland. And the Föhnwind warm and dry situation along western Grønland.
The Beering street is too narrow and shallow.. But the Fram street is wide open and deep. The arctic ocean is much more connected to and communicating with the atlantic, And the Panama ridge is tight.
The northpole is an ocean surrounded by land, and Antarktis is the opposite, a large landmass surrounded by open sea in the unbroken Antipassat belt.. . the southpole is far less influennced and warmd by oceanic winds and currents.
The Golfstream pushed and heated by the passat– wind returns and goes round and round clockvice in the fameous Sargasso- sea. But a branch of that current enters the antipassat, the westerlies, and over to the Eurasian continent through the english channel but mostly over the ridge north of Scotland with Shetland Færøyene and Island. And onto Norway and northward, the fameous Maelstrom at Lofoten and enters the Barents sea, where you see the ice limit is way north of Spitzbergen and even Franz Josefs land and Severnaya Zemlya in the season, in recent time.
The eastern ices are thawing much more than the western in our days. .
Then the water goes down because it gets colder and saltier. The water freeses out. The polar bassin is very deep, , and that water returns south again as the deepwater south current in the Framstreet east of Grønland. And crosses further under the Golfstream on its way south.
This is roughly the morphology of wind weathers sea and ices in the arctic and subarctic.
A consequense is that the fameous NAO (not to be confused with NATO) and the atlantic as such, may be more decisive to the climate than even the ENSO. Because it interferes with the arcctic sea ices.
Thus you can discuss coffee- prices in Brazil and Cocain from “south america”, and hurricanes and tornados and Las Vegas Caltex EXXON and the swamps of Washington.
And Moscovia, Ukraina.. Siberia, and China.
Physical geography first.
I can tell I’m hitting a nerve when the personal attacks start to multiply. What no one here seems to notice is that such attacks don’t bother me. I’m here because I always enjoy a good debate — and keep hoping to see intelligent/meaningful responses to the points I make. Unfortunately such responses are rare on these threads — what I get mostly are irate and often silly dismissals of the sort that waste everyone’s time. That’s OK too as such retorts can be amusing. I’ve often defended Donald Trump for the same reason. He may be an annoying blowhard — I tolerate him because he amuses me.
“You haven’t debunked the claim. You were shown copious evidence that aerosols caused a cooling effect mid last century. Most people would have accepted this and moved on. Don/t be a flat earther Victor. You’re smarter than that.” So what you’re saying is that aerosols caused a cooling effect even where there were NO aerosols to be found. That’s quite a trick!
“The science doesnt say those things. Your comments are a strawman. The science says if we stop emitting CO2 warming will stop after a short delay and sea level rise will not be nearly as much as predicted” Well first of all there is no such thing as “the science,” only a group of people with a certain amount of training who identify as scientists. Moreover, real scientists do not concern themselves with absolute truth, that’s the realm of philosophy. To point to “the science” as some sort of oracle is consistent with cult-think. As for the “short delay” you mention, sorry but I don’t know of any scientist who makes such a claim. Even if we were to cease all burning of fossil fuels tomorrow, the effects would not be noticeable if at all for decades if not centuries. Assuming there would be any effects at all.
“And what do we do when the world runs out of fossil fuels, or they become very expensive to extract? We will have to transition to another energy source. . .” On this point I agree. Our real problem, as I see it, is not “climate change” but the fact that all fossil fuels will eventually run out. The problem is not some perceived need to cease burning them, but what to do when they are no longer available. So contrary to what some here might think I strongly support the development of alternative energy sources, and the research needed to make them reliable.
“Energy transitions can be managed to minimise pain. Ignoring the climate problem will certainly create pain, and costs that will fall on poor people and poor countries the most.” As I see things, it’s all the futile attempts to “tackle” climate change by undermining the use of fossil fuels that will have a devastating affect on the poor, and indeed just about everyone, long before any effects of climate change might be expected to kick in.
“Weaktor, the problem is that the only supports your position has are your stubborn refusal to understand even the most rudimentary statistics and your embrace of the fallacy of argument from consequences.” I’ve worked closely with highly qualified statisticians on more than one project and no one ever questioned my understanding of what they were doing. From time to time I would find a flaw in their reasoning and in every case they agreed and proceeded to fix the problem. There’s more to science than math and more to understanding data than the application of raw statistics. If you don’t see the need to apply critical thinking to any statistical result then YOU are the one who doesn’t understand.
” I think you should leave this site for good. Obviously, you’re not getting anywhere here and your comments aren’t appreciated by the scientific community.” Sorry but I fail to see any “scientific community” on these comment threads, just a bunch of self-appointed “experts”. I’m not here to make friends but to challenge what I see as a dangerous tendency toward group-think.
“Sigh. Victor is just so certain of himself and his ability to judge the science. But unfortunately he is just a deluded old fool.” Lol! I’ll accept the “old fool” part. And I do in fact live on a hill. As for “deluded” — perhaps — one never knows for sure. As I see it, however, you’re the one who’s deluded. Dangerously so.
“For years he has made claims that the experts are mistaken even though he has repeatedly shown on this site that has failed to understand even the most basic science.” I’m not the only one who’s questioned the wisdom of these so-called “experts” as I’m sure you are aware. There’s a long list of us, including many distinguished physicists. I’m wondering how many posing here as authorities on “the science” have ever actually conducted serious scientific research or even published a peer reviewed paper. I’ve been involved in extensive research over many years and published several such papers.
Victor the Troll,
So to be clear, you admit you are just a trolling. (I ask as you are evidently a half-wit and may not realise this is what you are admitting.)
V: I’ve worked closely with highly qualified statisticians on more than one project and no one ever questioned my understanding of what they were doing.
BPL: I question it. You don’t understand simply concepts like “correlation” and “trend” even after having them explained to you over and over and over again. You’ve either got a mental block on the subject or you’re just flat-out stupid.
V: I’m wondering how many posing here as authorities on “the science” have ever actually conducted serious scientific research or even published a peer reviewed paper. I’ve been involved in extensive research over many years and published several such papers.
BPL: But none of yours were in climate science or planetary astronomy, so by definition they don’t count. Nobody cares how many papers you’ve published about music or anthropology. My list of peer reviewed papers is only six so far, but every one of them dealt with planetary astronomy and 5 out of 6 dealt with planetary surface temperatures. And people like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann and Ray Pierrehumbert have lists of peer-reviewed papers as long as your arm. Don’t try going up against them for climate science credentials.
What no one here seems to notice is that such attacks don’t bother me.
Actually, it is glaringly obvious. Victor pretty much is a failure when it comes to self reflection and realization. Victor is the victim. Isn’t this a sign of a narcissist?
I’m here because I always enjoy a good debate — and keep hoping to see intelligent/meaningful responses to the points I make.
What Victor actually hopes for are responses that agree with his misguided understanding of the science.
Apparently Victor has no clue as to what an intelligent/meaningful response to the points he makes is because such are certainly not in anyway lacking. Recent example among many of Victor ignoring meaningful responses: Victor has yet to acknowledge that ocean warming is highly correlated to rising CO2 levels and as this warming is a direct effect of those rising levels, that correlation is far more meaningful than the correlation of the indirect effect of rising surface air temperatures. Nor has he acknowledge that temperatures in subsequent years following an El Nino event are not warmer due to the El Nino. Again, Victor hasn’t learned a damned thing.
— what I get mostly are irate and often silly dismissals of the sort that waste everyone’s time.
Nothing like the pot calling the kettle black.
That’s OK too as such retorts can be amusing.
That Victor’s motivation on here is purely for his own amusement is quite clear—because his motive is clearly not about understanding the science better.
Discourse is never in the spirit of learning, rather it is to arrogantly proclaim superior knowledge in areas for which the evidence actually shows he has little or no knowledge or expertise. He’s looking for a good debate—NOT!
Clearly never makes any attempt to understand the science and what the evidence actually tells us—never completes legitimate research of areas for which claims are made prior to posting. Expects others to do the work for him then ignores it—regularly ignores evidence and facts provided to him that make his points invalid and without merit.
Seems to fail to understand or acknowledge basic physical laws—has no formal training in physics or any of the physical sciences. Zero understanding of how science works but claims otherwise.
Has no knowledge of the history of the science and how the case for AGW was built over many many years. Does not have any knowledge of how data is analyzed though claims otherwise. Fails to recognize uncertainty except when it supports his arguments.
Fails to understand complexity and how various factors interplay with one another. Looks at information in isolation rather than in the context of the whole.
Does not understand what constitutes correlations. Fails to understand that many correlations are non-linear. Has zero understanding of statistical analysis. Regularly has claimed lack of correlation when that correlation is statistically valid as per the experts.
Very questionable critical thinking skills. Is incapable of drawing logical conclusions based on ALL of the available information. However, he believes himself to be a critical thinker or even a good skeptical thinker, when, in reality, he is exceedingly gullible, credulous, and prone to blatant confirmation bias, in which he discards or diminishes the importance of any information that contradicts his preconceptions and gives undue weight to any datum that can possibly be twisted to reinforce his position.
A meaningful “debate” with Victor just isn’t possible.
I’m not the only one who’s questioned the wisdom of these so-called “experts” as I’m sure you are aware. There’s a long list of us, including many distinguished physicists.
ROTFLMAO
Yup. Your idiocies REALLY ARE pwning all those libbie scientists! You sure show them!
BTW…In a backwards sort of way you are providing a great service here which is probably why the mods keep you hanging around. You provide everyday, drive-by readers with great material to learn by in the many responses which correct your continual misinformation about simple, basic, completely well known points. Otherwise the discussions here might be over the heads of the nonscientists out there.
So congrats.
jgnfld: – “BTW…In a backwards sort of way you are providing a great service here which is probably why the mods keep you hanging around.”
That thought had occurred to me also. But how much longer do commenters here at this blog need to dedicate ongoing resources to “correct continual misinformation about simple, basic, completely well known points”?
Weaktor, no, lackwit, you are not hitting a nerve–or any other target for that matter….well, unless your target is stupidity and then well done you.
You are exasperating because:
1) You don’t listen.
2) You refuse to recognize those who are more expert than you (just about anyone)
3) You refuse to acknowledge the validity of established statistical and data analysis.
4) You labor under the misapprehension that your opinion matters. It doesn’t
Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that those who study climate for a living understand the subject better than you do?
Wow, What delusion.
A.” including many distinguished physicists.” Irrelevant and a deflection. The issue is climate/atmospheric scientists who study climate. The idea that you and others think they know more than literally every single professional atmospheric science organization in the world including the National Academy of Science is the absolute height of arrogance and scientific ignorance.
B. “Scientific research or even published a peer reviewed paper”. Again, textbook deflection. This subject is manmade climate change. And peer reviewed papers about climate change. Not peer reviewed papers on statistics or your favorite ice cream. Get it? It is the subject that matters.
C. You have utterly failed time and time again to understand the basics of the scientific method which you ought to have learned in grade school. Yet you flaunt that ignorance and are unable to admit to being wrong as a result of deep insecurity. Scientific Facts>>Your opinion. Every single day.
D. It is however delightful to see that everyone here who does understand how science is conducted has rented room in your head as you come back and repeat the same lies over and over. And deflect to a different topic every single time you are caught with a scientific lie. The fact is you can’t leave here because you are so desperate for attention, facts be damned. Busted! Or in the vernacular you apparently prefer like “under your skin”, you’ve been “pwned” again and again and again and are too simple to realize it :-)
Victor
“So what you’re saying is that aerosols caused a cooling effect even where there were NO aerosols to be found. That’s quite a trick!”
Not saying that at all. Plenty of aerosols were “found”. Quite high levels of sulphate aerosols were common in many cities globally during the period 1945 – 1975 due to the adoption of coal fired electricity generation in the rapid post war economic expansion, and coal being used for home heating. People have previously posted research papers on measuring levels of sulphate aerosols during the period. I even remember my parents having an open fire and burning coal and wood, in New Zealand in the late 1960s.
With CO2 concentrations being less mid last century than in recent years sulphate aerosols were easily able to suppress the warming effect of CO2.
People here also explained how sulphate aerosols distribute widely on the air currents and winds. And provided research studies on this. Suggest google a diagram of the earths circulatory system.
I do recall you claiming sulphate aerosols were not found in cities in Europe and America (?) and posting a study however the data was gathered in the last ten years, not mid last century. You apparently didn’t see the fine print on how the study was done.
Taken together the high level of sulphate aerosols is a convincing explanation of why temperatures were flat mid last century, although other factors also contributed. The PDO was in a negative phase over the same period.
Since the 1970s, sulphate aerosol pollution decreased globally because scrubbers were generally been fitted to coal fired power stations, because of the acid rain problem. I followed this a little bit because I’ve always been interested in pollution. This happened over the 1970s and 1980s and has continued in most places.
Coal for home energy has generally gone out of fashion. Cities in developed countries generally have cleaner air now.
However levels of sulphate aerosols are still significant globally, just because of the volume of coal fired power built after the 198o’s and poor standards in some countries. Aerosol emissions are however located in industrial zones, rather than in cities. And levels of CO2 globally have become high enough to cancel the cooling effects of remaining aerosols.
This is all common knowledge and straightforward, and this is why I suggested your denial makes you sound like a flat earther. Especially as this information has been shown to you several times already.
Not meant to be an insult. We all get stubborn sometimes.
I recall the coal bin in the basement of my natal home in Sault Ste. Marie. It was disused by the time of my birth in 1955, and my father removed it to make a tiny library-cum-guest room; among other things it had a complete collection of the (Penguin-published) Hornblower novels in paperback. It would acquire a couple of decades-worth of National Geographics.
Weaktor Says: “I can tell I’m hitting a nerve when the personal attacks start to multiply. What no one here seems to notice is that such attacks don’t bother me.”
That is because you completely lack any form of self-awareness, and you have absolutely no idea how utterly and unapologetically stupid you really are.
I suppose nerve damage is common when one shoots oneself in the foot.
@ Victor
Here, you find it necessary to declare and betray a lot of personal things about yourself and your deeper basics, that you find warranted and holy absolutely in order.
Maybe science and “the people” and the majority of humanity, the science and the high priests, GURUs professors doctors and teachers, and all the responsible parents and grandparents, children, peasants and fishermen also the amateurs, the librarians and the musicians and the painters,…. the housemaids…. the voters…. are not so interested and not so upset about the same?
Maybe Matter, Maybe the Climate, maybe the earth, , maybe the solar system, maybe the landscape, maybe truth and reality….. is not “dia- lectic” ??????
Maybe SATAN the Devil, Dia- bolos should be shown back to his place and behind limits and ropes and bars in the taverns, in the shops and workshops, on the websites, and on the free market genosse Victor…..
……. and down to Hell, to Gehenna, where he belongs?
For the sake of Hygiene and Economy , for possible life and democracy, for possible breathing bathing and prophitable fishing and recreational skiing, Genosse Victor?
@ Victor
You must also understand that the way yu have plaid out your chards for a long time now, makes your claims of knowing enough about science and statistics and even have “published several such “Papers” (peer rewiewed) less credible.
It is unbelieveable.
For very simple reasons that you also ought to know and hardly can repair.
Such experience and praxis , paticipation and necessary long aqnd solid learnings for it, does make its impacts on your brains, your thoughts and mental habits, your soul and your syntax and vocabulary and on your basic archetyps and conscepts.
Education is meant to give you a “formation” and full development of your personality, and it will, if real and autentic. .
It marks your personality deeper than just a professional sociolect that you can buy cheaply in the shops, read quickly from a book or a brochure, a small political katechism, , or load down from the internet. Or absolve in a short course study of sales promption and personality strenghtening & performance.
I can tell you the same also in a most scaring way.
I have also learnt how to security clear people. That is often quite necessary in the free world , on the free market, and quite especially inside of the closed societies peoples republics , on the black markets and in the burglarshops. ” Can I rely on and make deals and business with that person?
The medical doctor for instance, a high experise and professionh with monopoly. Is he/ she autentic, or just a quack?
I check up the common- pensa educationalo premises for even be admitted to such a study and…. some details that I know they have to absolve consciously in person to get out from there again with a legal diploma.
I share their pensa of general physics chemistery and biology from highschool, and check up carefully “en passant” whether they are scared of that or hate that or tell that it is irrelvant and that I havent understood yet. Which betrays cheating and quackery in person.
Who, has not passed the grades, most often betrays it by large and snobbish holes in due common highschool educational Pensa.
Then I know they have to go through the human dissication hall, a quite closed room and study. I have not been there, but I have been shown and manduced (= led by hand) through the butchery of dead animal tissues, pigs birds fishes, and reindeers. So I simlpy smile and tell of myself in terms of general butchery. My sausseages, my heart and lungs, my neck nose and throat, my ears, my glands nerves and brains, my ribs my fore paws and my hind legs, and my skeleton bone for bone as we also butcher and eat it. On skin, I dicuss the properies and qualities of wild animal leather.
The good autentic medical doctor takes that with ease and will sustain it and tell back in the same categories because it is basics of their autentic facultary profession ever after Leonardo da Vinci.
But the quack and the whitchdoctor will get very adult and begin to teach me as an aspirant aside of due common highschool BACCALAVREVS 1 and even above the Faculty of Medicine in the grades..
Get out of that office. , That “Dr.” is dangerous and to be given to the ministery of health and told about on the free market.
You can examine Astronauts, Police officers, Lawyers and Judges Firemen , US Sherriffs, CIA – agents the same way.
I wrote it befrore, I am dangerous you see, I know how to ask and to examine people.
I had my SPAM- mailbox full of fabulous offers 15 years ago. Even I can now have my “Papers” and Diploma, from fameous universities and institutions worldwid. Just tell a bit about yourself and what you are good at, and what you expect to earn from that. We will state out the papers and diplomas. for you, for 1000-US$”
Thus the rumors came out shortly after:
“More and more Doctors, Professors, Dipl Engineers, Scientists…. from Worldwide today, .. are finding that the Hockeystick is broken. “
b fagan 14 APR 2023 AT 11:05 PM Yes and the following of mine from 2014. Tropical Pacific Ocean easterly trade winds started having higher average speed at 1995 AD due to a warming tropical Atlantic Ocean surface. The Tropical Atlantic Ocean surface has warmed and has increased the intensity of the Tropical Pacific Ocean trade winds by 50% in under 30 years because the atmospheric circulation is coupled. The GMST trends have been:
+0.13 degrees / decade: UAH lower troposphere 1979-2017
+0.17 degrees / decade: RSS lower troposphere 1979-2017
+0.165 degrees / decade: Surface La Nina & ENSO-neutral years 1970-2014 (me from GISTEMP)
+0.20 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1966-1995 (me from GISTEMP)
+0.23 degrees / decade: Surface El Nino years 1995-2014 (me from GISTEMP, high uncertainty, sparse & varied data points)
+0.18 degrees / decade: Surface average 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)
+0.11 degrees / decade: Ocean surface 1966-2014 (GISTEMP)
+0.047 degrees / decade: Ocean 0-300M depth 1966-2010 89 / 432 = 0.206 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.030 degrees / decade: Ocean 300-700M depth 1966-2010 76 / 576 = 0.132 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.026 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-1000M depth 1966-2010 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
+0.15 degrees total increase: Ocean 0-1000M depth (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, Matthew England talk plots etc.)
—————-
+0.009 degrees / decade: Ocean 700-2000M depth 1966-2010 77 / 1872 = 0.0411 (me from various, Hadley, ORAS4, talk plots etc.)
—————-
Quote: “Atlantic warming turbocharges Pacific trade winds Date:August 3, 2014 Source:University of New South Wales. New research has found rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean, likely caused by global warming, has turbocharged Pacific Equatorial trade winds. Currently the winds are at a level never before seen on observed records, which extend back to the 1860s. The increase in these winds has caused eastern tropical Pacific cooling, amplified the Californian drought, accelerated sea level rise three times faster than the global average in the Western Pacific and has slowed the rise of global average surface temperatures since 2001. It may even be responsible for making El Nino events less common over the past decade due to its cooling impact on ocean surface temperatures in the eastern Pacific. “We were surprised to find the main cause of the Pacific climate trends of the past 20 years had its origin in the Atlantic Ocean,” said co-lead author Dr Shayne McGregor from the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science (ARCCSS) atthe University of New South Wales.”
—————-
Quote: “The record-breaking increase in Pacific Equatorial trade winds over the past 20 years had, until now, baffled researchers. Originally, this trade wind intensification was considered to be a response to Pacific decadal variability. However, the strength of the winds was much more powerful than expected due to the changes in Pacific sea surface temperature. Another riddle was that previous research indicated that under global warming scenarios Pacific Equatorial Trade winds would slow down over the coming century. The solution was found in the rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean basin, which has created unexpected pressure differences between the Atlantic and Pacific. This has produced wind anomalies that have given Pacific Equatorial trade winds an additional big push. “The rapid warming of the Atlantic Ocean created high pressure zones in the upper atmosphere over that basin and low pressure zones close to the surface of the ocean,” says Professor Axel Timmermann, co-lead and corresponding author from the University of Hawaii. “The rising air parcels, over the Atlantic eventually sink over the eastern tropical Pacific, thus creating higher surface pressure there. The enormous pressure see-saw with high pressure in the Pacific and low pressure in the Atlantic gave the Pacific trade winds an extra kick, amplifying their strength. It’s like giving a playground roundabout an extra push as it spins past.” Many climate models appear to have underestimated the magnitude of the coupling between the two ocean basins, which may explain why they struggled to produce the recent increase in Pacific Equatorial trade wind trends. While active, the stronger Equatorial trade winds have caused far greater overturning of ocean water in the West Pacific, pushing more atmospheric heat into the ocean, as shown by co-author and ARCCSS Chief Investigator Professor Matthew England earlier this year. This increased overturning appears to explain much of the recent slowdown in the rise of global average surface temperatures. Importantly, the researchers don’t expect the current pressure difference between the two ocean basins to last. When it does end, they expect to see some rapid changes, including a sudden acceleration of global average surface temperatures. “It will be difficult to predict when the Pacific cooling trend and its contribution to the global hiatus in surface temperatures will come to an end,” Professor England says.”
—————-
Recent intensification of wind-driven circulation in the Pacific and the ongoing warming hiatus
Nature Climate Change 4, 222–227 (2014) doi:10.1038/nclimate2106 Received 11 September 2013 Accepted 18 December 2013 Published online 09 February 2014 Corrected online 14 February 2014
Matthew H. England, Shayne McGregor, Paul Spence, Gerald A. Meehl, Axel Timmermann, Wenju Cai, Alex Sen Gupta, Michael J. McPhaden, Ariaan Purich & Agus Santoso Affiliations
“Here we show that a pronounced strengthening in Pacific trade winds over the past two decades—unprecedented in observations/reanalysis data and not captured by climate models—is sufficient to account for the cooling of the tropical Pacific and a substantial slowdown in surface warming through increased subsurface ocean heat uptake.”
Interesting. Any thoughts out there about why the Atlantic has warmed so rapidly?
My oh my. Talk about stirring up a hornet’s nest. All the complaints have been aired again and again since I began posting here years ago, folks. The personal attacks are nothing new, but the attackers keep tirelessly repeating them, as though it could make a difference. I admit I was initially amused — now I’m just bored.
What you all fail to see is that none of it is about me, my “qualifications,” my “arrogance,” the notion that I’ve laid claim to some superior knowledge, etc. I’ve never made such a claim. Call me an idiot, a fool, call me delusional. Well that’s fine with me. Because nothing I’ve posted here is predicated on my knowledge or understanding of climate science, statistics or anything else So attacking my “pretentions” is neither here nor there. What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question. And contrary to the sort of claims regularly being claimed in these threads, the evidence stands regardless of what you might think of me. It’s not about me, but about the evidence. Take me out of the picture and you still have to deal with the evidence — evidence that clearly makes you uncomfortable.
“Victor has yet to acknowledge that ocean warming is highly correlated to rising CO2 levels and as this warming is a direct effect of those rising levels, that correlation is far more meaningful than the correlation of the indirect effect of rising surface air temperatures.” Sorry, but the evidence says otherwise. Forget about what “Victor” says and pay attention to the evidence for a change: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/19418.jpeg
As should be obvious, the picture for ocean temperatures is very similar to that for global temperatures generally. We see a rise from ca. 1910 – ca. 1940, followed by a sudden drop, followed by a period of about 25 years when we see no upward trend at all. And once again, we see that notorious “hiatus” from roughly 2000 to 2015. According to respected climatologist Spencer Weart, that initial period of warming cannot be attributed to CO2 emissions, as they were too low. All the while CO2 levels are steadily rising. We’ve been through this before but you are unwilling to accept it. That’s on YOU, not me.
“Nor has he acknowledge that temperatures in subsequent years following an El Nino event are not warmer due to the El Nino. Again, Victor hasn’t learned a damned thing.” I mentioned temperature spikes due to two extreme El Nino events, followed by a gradual decline, as indicated in the following graph: https://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1996.6/plot/rss/from:1996.6/trend
“regularly ignores evidence and facts provided to him that make his points invalid and without merit.” Examples?
“Why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that those who study climate for a living understand the subject better than you do?” I’ve never claimed to understand the subject better than anyone else. As I’ve said many times, please forget about me and concentrate on the evidence. If you can’t explain, for example, why sea levels began rising during a period when global temperatures had been falling for some time, that’s your problem, not mine.
At last, a reasonable post — from nigelj. “Quite high levels of sulphate aerosols were common in many cities globally during the period 1945 – 1975 due to the adoption of coal fired electricity generation in the rapid post war economic expansion, and coal being used for home heating.” Nice try, Nigel. Sounds reasonable. However: I doubt there were many coal-fired plants or coal furnaces in the arctic back then: https://skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticTC1880-2010NCEP.png
nor the Antarctic: https://skepticalscience.com/pics/AntarcticTemperatureChange.png
nor Africa: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/giordanopicture1_copy.jpg
As for Mr. Carbomonotonous — I’d take you seriously if you were capable of formulating a coherent sentence.
Victor.
Regarding your links on temperature trends in the arctic, antarctic and africa.
Your contention (paraphrasing) has generally been that sulphate aerosols couldn,t be the cause of flat global temperatures mid last century, because certain locations like the arctic and antarctic and africa with no industry or electricity generating stations, and remote from aerosol sources still had flat temperatures mid last century. You alleged that being without aerosols they should have warmed mid last century.
Its been explained many times that sulphate aerosols and cooler air parcels carry a long way from their sources to remote locations and cause a cooling effect in such locations. They carry on winds and air currents as I mentioned above. It doesnt take high concentrations of aerosols to have a cooling effect when CO2 concentrations are low relative to presently. Several related research studies and maps of aerosols spread were posted for you some years ago, several times.
I remember your response was you don’t believe aerosols can have a cooling effect when carried such a long distance and dispersed, and you dont believe the studies. Im afraid your personal incredulity does not overturn the explanations, maps, and science studies. This is why you aren’t convincing me.
Victor the Troll,
It was October 2015 that you first landed up here telling us:-
The link you provided to your “serious(sic) blog post” is now long dead but the responses to your comment show us you were of the view that the wobbles in a graph showing SLR post 1870 and another showing global temperature post-1880 were different enough to be incompatible with the science saying CO2 is driving AGW.
In the eight years since you haven’t presented anything more of any significance to support you conclusion although you have since added to your crazy mantra the idea, as set out in your comment above, that temperatures in a place in the world remote from sources of industrial aerosols cannot be impacted by those aerosol emissions.
Victor, it has never been “the evidence” that as you put it ‘makes us uncomfortable,’ We are fine with those wobbles, fine with the temperature of remote regions being impacted by the cooling created by aerosols half a world away. It is however your crazy mantra repeatedly presented here that we find distasteful. You are trolling. And until our hosts find the time to begin again dumping your nonsense in the Bore Hole (you even have the affront to tell us above that you are “bored”), your comments will continue to be subject to derision and complaint, “again and again.”
Recall Tamino’s expert take down of Victor way back in June of 2018.
The comments are particularly insightful.
Of course, nothings changed . . . Victor still hasn’t learned a damned thing.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/weak-sauce-from-climate-deniers/
V: What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question.
BPL: No, you really haven’t.
V: What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question.
BPL: No, you really haven’t.
Chuck: Victor is getting exactly what he wants here, which is a pointless discussion about Victor. You’d be better off debating Lauren Boebart over what kind of assault weapon Jesus carried on his donkey.
This is probably the saddest response made by Victor to date. The cluelessness expressed is beyond belief.
What you all fail to see is that none of it is about me, my “qualifications,” my “arrogance,” the notion that I’ve laid claim to some superior knowledge, etc. I’ve never made such a claim. Call me an idiot, a fool, call me delusional. Well that’s fine with me. Because nothing I’ve posted here is predicated on my knowledge or understanding of climate science, statistics or anything else.
Yup, arrogance and pure delusion for sure. It actually is all about Victor and it is Victor that fails to see it. Everything Victor has posted on here is predicated on his knowledge or understanding of climate science, statistics, or whatever. The total lack of which is for certain. EVERYTHING. And it is stunning that Victor totally fails to see this.
What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question. And contrary to the sort of claims regularly being claimed in these threads, the evidence stands regardless of what you might think of me. It’s not about me, but about the evidence.
This statement is so funny that it is sad. Science certainly is about the evidence—all the evidence, not just bits and pieces of evidence that one chooses. That Victor thinks he is providing evidence that appears to call the mainstream view into question is laughable. That’s where Victor’s total lack of critical thinking skills and lack of expertise comes into play. Evidence must be evaluated, its importance judged, and must be taken in context of the whole. Something Victor is totally incapable of doing.
For example. Victor provides us with the air surface temperatures record as “evidence” that there is no correlation of rising temperatures to CO2. Yes, the temperature record evidence “stands”, but what it is evidence for requires expertise which Victor does not have. Take Victor’s no correlation claim (except for one short period of time)—is this evidence? NO, it is a claim made by someone with zero expertise—while the experts show the correlation to be real. And consider the temperatures of the years after the 2015-16 el Nino event, what is this evidence for? Victor claims those years are only warm because of the el Nino which can be ignored when considering correlation which is blatantly false. This once again shows his total lack of expertise. Those years are clear evidence of underlying warming of the climate system and that warming is correlated to rising CO2 levels. YES, it is about the evidence—all the evidence taken in context.
“Victor has yet to acknowledge that ocean warming is highly correlated to rising CO2 levels and as this warming is a direct effect of those rising levels, that correlation is far more meaningful than the correlation of the indirect effect of rising surface air temperatures.” Sorry, but the evidence says otherwise. Forget about what “Victor” says and pay attention to the evidence for a change.
Once again, Victor’s lack of knowledge probably comes into play which he claims isn’t important. He provided a chart of ocean surface temperatures when the statement was made that CO2 levels are highly correlated to the increasing ocean warming which is a direct result of CO2 forcing We are NOT talking about surface temperatures which is an indirect effect. He is either being totally disingenuous or he is stupid.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-ocean-heat-content
https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-ocean-heat
“Nor has he acknowledge that temperatures in subsequent years following an El Nino event are not warmer due to the El Nino. Again, Victor hasn’t learned a damned thing.” I mentioned temperature spikes due to two extreme El Nino events, followed by a gradual decline, as indicated in the following graph.
Victor obfuscates and ignores the question because he does ignore those years when discussing correlation. And, BTW, the chart he provides includes a trend line starting in 1998 that clearly shows rising temperatures of almost 0.5 degrees for the entire period. This is actually evidence that contradicts Victor’s “there was no warming”, yet Victor continues to claim that the el Nino years and following years don’t count when looking for correlation. So who is ignoring evidence?
@ CCHolley
This is quite a good analysis of Victor, and useful, and to be studied by many, who wonder how really to judge him.
Victor
CCH: “Nor has he acknowledge that temperatures in subsequent years following an El Nino event are not warmer due to the El Nino. Again, Victor hasn’t learned a damned thing.”
Victor: ” I mentioned temperature spikes due to two extreme El Nino events, followed by a gradual decline, as indicated in the following graph:”
Nigelj. Victor conveniently leaves out his full comments: “V: Interesting. The hiatus lasted from 1998 through 2015. Almost all your dates are post-2015, reflecting an abrupt temperature rise usually attributed to a powerful El Nino.” (April fifth above thread).
I pointed out previously that Victor had provided no citation to support his incorrect contention that temperature increases after 2015 through to 2022 were allegedly attributed to the 2015 el nino. I pointed out the science articles say warming attributed to the 2015 el nino affected only the years 2015 – 2016 with the el nino fizzling out in 2016. I don’t recall any of them saying the 2015 el nino was the driving force for temperatures after 2016 to 2022. The years after 2016 were stand alone years including a mixture of la nina years, neutral years and a weak el nino.
Take all the el nino years and la nina years out of the 100 year temperature record and you are left with a warming trend as below. The graph is interactive:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/interactive-much-el-nino-affect-global-temperature/
Victor claims there’s only a 20 year correlation between CO2 and warming, over the period 1978 – 1998 or something like that. He says ignore the warming period after 2105 because its all due to the 2015 el nino. As discussed he is wrong, but the cognitive dissonance means he ignores what people post and goes on deflecting, moving the goal posts and repeating his mantra .
People end up calling Victor names because he acts like someone who refuses to acknowledge that 1 + 1 = 2. It gets frustrating for the group.
Nigelj
About ViCTOR behind his back
“Victor…….acts like someone who refuses to acknowledge that 1+1=2. It gets frustrating..”
I might call it paracitism on our very fameous and reliable, politeness and tolerance vis a vis idiots, alians, and handicapped. .
Victor seems to perform quite consequently as recommended by Frank Lunz.
I try and see and crossexamine them for their background Katechism litterature and ideological sources of basic confirmation and secteric upbringing, as there is less signals and symptoms of due common higher learning of archetypical pensa. The “middle school” Baccalaureus 1 , normally from about 11 to 18 years is lacking by some in an often characteristic way.
That special syndrom I believe, the major lack of “higher formation” that is filled up with political and secteric substitutes for the same, may rather definitely have had social, religious, tribal and political causes.
I look at them and try and analyze it by that hypothesis.
Basic characters and the later fix ideas of life are formed at that age. So ask them and try and find out, where were they then? and in which class and society / party / Con- gregation/ country?
And have found this to be a most fruitful theory of psychoanalysis and technical archaeology. What are or were their possible GURUs and Idols and High Priests of possible ownership and mastership of art and of craft and salvation and wealth of nations?
Things like that will hardly change later in life because it takes major cathastrophies and diseases such as a new Puberty later in life for possible “conversion” and basic change of mind.
Which is feared because that is quite painful.
People are put to jail and even heavily medicated even tortured, in order to change their basic characters, minds, and opinions and fix ideas, their con- science and their shame. .
Carbomontanus..
“I try and see and crossexamine them (people like Victor) for their background Katechism litterature and ideological sources of basic confirmation and secteric upbringing, as there is less signals and symptoms of due common higher learning of archetypical pensa. The “middle school” Baccalaureus 1 , normally from about 11 to 18 years is lacking by some in an often characteristic way….”
“That special syndrom I believe, the major lack of “higher formation” that is filled up with political and secteric substitutes for the same, may rather definitely have had social, religious, tribal and political causes.”
I agree in general terms. The surprising thing Is Victor told us some years ago he was a top student at secondary school in science and maths as well as the humanities. His grades were very high apparently. So his failure to grasp various scientific issues is perplexing.
It might be that his high grades have made him over confident. He shows signs he may lean towards a narcissistic personality which makes people egocentric, over confident and very stubborn and unwilling to admit error to themselves.
He has an anthropology degree so his knowledge of high level science is limited.
Victor says he leans towards left wing (liberal and progressive) politics. This is also surprising because such people are normally accepting of the anthropogenic climate theory more than right wingers and conservatives. (Pew polling research).
Its possible Victor is a left wing concern troll. He has said he is worried that climate change mitigation will hurt ordinary people, and perhaps this makes him try and find fault with the science. There is a small group of left wing academics like this (eg Michael Moore). Victor has rejected my suggestion.
Victor has said he’s just an intrepid investigator, using his allegedly superior critical thinking skills to find fault with the science. Well, if this is his real motive, his critical thinking skills seem very average to me and Victors evidence against the consensus that we are warming the planet is weak. There are simple and compelling explanations for the things that bother him.
Or maybe Victor just likes the attention and being annoying or he has a mental block over certain issues.
I just doubt there is one reason for his denialist views. Its probably a mish mash of different things.
Ok that is my armchair psychoanalysis completed..
Re. “What I HAVE done is reveal evidence that appears to call the mainstream view of climate change into question. ”
Factoids devoid of knowledgeable and complete context are not “evidence”. They are merely the ramblings of a fool/crank or else are the chief grist in a propagandist’s mill.
Gramps may well have lived to 102 while smoking every day for 90 years. “Revealing this evidence” to the medical world (note the inherent arrogance) as a “proof” that tobacco does not cause cancer is either completely stupid or else is actively dishonest.
Was fiddling with ChatGPT and gave it the following input from our favorite denier…
————-
JG: 28. In passing, Dr Harde’s rigorous line-by-line calculations show the surface temperature only increases less than 0.3 to 0.6 K due to CO2 doubling, that is over 5 times smaller the IPCC’s official value 3.2 K. That’s why his new results are ignored by the main stream climate researchers.
ChatGPT: While it is true that Dr. Harde’s calculations suggest a smaller increase in surface temperature due to CO2 doubling compared to the IPCC’s official value, it is important to note that his results are not widely accepted by the scientific community.
There are several reasons for this. Firstly, Dr. Harde’s approach has been criticized for relying on a simplified model of the Earth’s climate system that does not take into account important feedback mechanisms that can amplify the warming effect of greenhouse gases. Additionally, his calculations assume that the climate system is in a state of equilibrium, which may not be accurate given the rapid increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in recent decades.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that climate science is a highly interdisciplinary field that relies on a wide range of data sources, including observations, laboratory experiments, and numerical models. The IPCC’s assessment reports are based on an extensive review of the scientific literature and are subject to rigorous peer review.
While it is always valuable to consider different perspectives and approaches in scientific research, it is important to rely on the weight of evidence from the broader scientific community when assessing the state of knowledge on complex topics such as climate change.
—————-
Maybe we should ALL use ChatGPT to respond to him!!!
Hello
quoting chatGPT
“criticized for relying on a simplified model of the Earth’s climate system”
“climate science is a highly interdisciplinary field”
“it is always valuable to consider different perspectives and approaches”
I have no idea about the context of this discussion, but the following thoughts come to mind:
1) Is it necessary to conceptualize climates, and change, exclusively via a radiative greenhouse hypothesis?
2) Are we talking about “the climate”, or “real climates”?
3) What are the pros and cons of the reductionist method and exclusive focus on TCR, ECS, and ESS problem definitions offered by climatology today?
4) How do the reductionists intend to incorporate the far more complex and diverse traditional knowledge, which has been specifically called upon in IPCC assessment reports?
Perhaps there should be a distinction between astrophysical problem definitions and those of tangible human experience when defining climate regimes and environmental change. There is no reason these cannot be complementary.
My suspicion is that climatology is selling itself short. Such that the diverse and fascinating subject has been reduced to an insular culture; narrow, and constrained.
thanks
JCM: My suspicion is that climatology is selling itself short. Such that the diverse and fascinating subject has been reduced to an insular culture; narrow, and constrained.
BPL: Your suspicion doesn’t have any actual evidence to back it up. Stop concern trolling.
@bpl
If I interpret JCM correctly, what he means by… “reduced to an island culture; narrow and restricted.” … the stubborn, medieval-looking brain structure of Presbyterian rams like you.
You can throw all kinds of evidence and papers into your sheepfold… Levenson the sheep eats them all up and then, very importantly, belches.
The burning down of your stupid sheep stable is a done deal… one way or the other.
@ JCM
Your suspicion that
“climatology is selling itself short. Such that the diverse and fascinating subject has been reduced to an insular culture, narrow, and constrained…”
roots in your own self and its deprived situation under special systematic racial state religious puristic administration instruction upbringigs and command.
Such as your flat earth religious political archetyp where “weeds” in the schoolyard and Kindergarten were fought with 3% NaClO3- spray and you were all forbidden to touch it because it was “pfui” and poisoneos giving you allergies.
Flowers were to be bought from the labour union politically controlled shops. Cherryblossom were to be pink and Japanese and come in February, and any cherrypicking in the wild was strictly forbidden because “poisoneous” Your “aunts” in Kindergarten were to instruct you that Prunus avies L was Atropa Belladonna, not to be touched by children. Children were to eat coloured sugar candies “drops” from the experts in the industries..
Blueberries craneberries strawberries only from the shops, politically controlled.
And your substitutes for nature, reality and science , was comic strips, LEGO and mass- produced uniformed proteses with interchangeable parts from the experts in anonymeous plural.
That “diverse and fascinating subject” has been reduced to an insular culture, narrow and constrained” drying up like a Lake Mead and Aral Sea as its producer the hollywood version of Dia lectic materialism dried up and is broke like a Soviet Union and its Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät in the provinces.
Not even Pope Francis with his Laudato Si and the Paris school with its MKSA system and its IPCC can serve you as long as you are addicted to the central stimulant of that thinktank of yours, that is sheere coke from Ayn Rand by the re- cycling destilleries of sheere materialism and communism through stainless steel closed thinktanks inside of the fameous Chateau Heartland in Michigan.
Quit your tribal provincial class warfare against zero celsius,
Behave and rather obey at the HERBARIVMs and scientific greenhouses of Carl von Linne, upstairs at the University of Uppsala, who also founded Kungliga Akademin and head- hunted Darwin at the Linnaean society in London.
Follow the Linnaean system, beware of immitations…..
. Calibrate yourself, your thoughts , and your affairs to the real snowman in person whenever showing up, , and grasp his weight and volumes and very constant body- temperature and why……..
………..because it is what rules over Las Vegas and southern California and Hollywood now.
You are apt to “scientific socialism” the Lysenco Stalin system with its vulgar national romantics of flowering garden paradice to the inaugurated bloody believers in the “science” and revelations, ….and dream of a better world “Schlaraffenland” (Gebr. .Grimm) the national political romantic verbal chat fraculty.
and ridicule and badger the autentic chief engineer, Master of Craft, Master of Art…. by that hooligan union ultra leftist devlish communist bloody devlish inspiration from Goethes Mephisto im Studierzimmer and from the Cateter, on systematics:
Mephisto: “Grau, treuer Freund, ist jede Teorie. Und Grün des Lebens goldner Baum”
The class warfare against Gallilei ,Darwin, Keppler, Brahe, Pasteur, and Newton, John Dalton Faraday, Tyndall, and The Royal Society, Kungliga Akademin, the Royal Frederiks, Harward, Cambridge and the NASA GISS with James Hansen is communist manifesto with o..
I can guarantee that I have finer trees and flowers in my garden than yours and finer birds also
along with Köppens and Darwins and Linnes and Otto Schmeils system, and finer weather along with Vilhelm Bjerknes` and Theo Löbsacks explainations Because then I do not need the substitutes and the artificial immitations from the experts and consumer cartoon industries.
One more and then I’ll shut up:
JG: Can 2 variables correlate if they wiggle at different places?
ChatGPT: Yes, it is possible for two variables to correlate even if they fluctuate or “wiggle” at different times or places. Correlation is a statistical measure that describes the relationship between two variables, and it is based on the degree to which changes in one variable are associated with changes in the other variable.
There are several ways in which two variables can be correlated, even if they fluctuate at different times or places. For example, they may be correlated if they have a similar overall pattern of change over time, even if they do not change at the exact same moments. Alternatively, they may be correlated if changes in one variable tend to occur shortly before or after changes in the other variable, even if they do not occur at the same time.
Ultimately, whether or not two variables correlate depends on the specific relationship between them, and this can be determined using statistical methods such as correlation coefficients or regression analysis.
JG: Can one estimate correlation by eye
ChatGPT: It is possible to make a rough estimate of correlation by eye, but it is not a reliable or accurate method of determining correlation. Correlation is a statistical measure that quantifies the degree of association between two variables, and it is best determined by calculating a correlation coefficient using a statistical software or calculator.
When attempting to estimate correlation by eye, one may look at a scatter plot of the data points for the two variables and make a subjective judgment about the degree of association between them. However, this method can be influenced by personal bias and perception, and it may not capture the true nature of the relationship between the variables. Additionally, correlation is influenced by many factors, including sample size, outliers, and the underlying distribution of the data, which can be difficult to accurately assess visually.
Therefore, while it is possible to make a rough estimate of correlation by eye, it is not a reliable or accurate method, and it is recommended to use statistical methods to determine correlation.
___
So…ChatGPT–which simply uses artificial rocks with interesting properties (i.e., chips) to “think” with–is apparently a much, much deeper thinker than our resident denier.!
@ jgnfld
Yes, really very fine, quite ingenious and brilliant if I may say so.
What have we got artificial intelligence for?
To keep up with and to beat the Victors of course, who have been draining their wine from that special thinktank in that special snobbish Chateau in Michigan for so many years now.
According to Eric Rignot, glaciologist at the University of California, Irvine and Caltech’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory: “This is an important study revealing that we have not seen anything yet in terms of how fast an ice sheet can retreat dynamically, not just melting away, but falling apart… This is not a model. This is real data. And it is frankly scary, even to me. These data should keep us awake at night,” Ibid.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2023/04/14/disturbing-sea-level-studies/
Chuck Hughes: – “These data should keep us awake at night.”
Like this data: Per NOAA data, the daily average sea surface temperature (SST) between 60°N to 60°S latitude is still holding above the +21 °C line (up to 24 Apr 2023). From Apr 1 to 5 the daily average SST reached an all-time peak on the instrumental record (so far) of +21.1 °C.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/clim/sst_daily/
In the YouTube video titled John Englander, Expert on Sea Level Rise, Talks with US Harbors About Changing Coastal Waters, duration 0:41:42, oceanographer John Englander said from time interval 0:14:48:
“But we’re now looking at feet of sea level rise this century. The latest NOAA projection in a paper that came out since we last talked, it was in February, looks at 10-to-12 inches of sea level rise as a global average by mid-century. But then in the second half of century, between 2-to-7 feet, in other words they’re noting the acceleration which is happening decade-by-decade now. The rate of ice melting on land, and therefore the rate of global sea level rise, has tripled in thirty years. It’s gone from an average of a millimetre-and-a-half to about 5 millimetres in thirty years. Hard to notice, it’s fractions of an inch, but it’s the acceleration that should get our attention, like compounding interest.”
And from time interval 0:18:39:
“And then two is, knowing the planet is already 1.1 degrees Celsius, right around 2 degrees Fahrenheit warmer, that heat’s in the ocean, that’s not going anywhere quick, even if we stop burning fossil fuels, the heat that’s in the ocean will continue to melt the ice for centuries, and that’s unavoidable now, because of the tremendous energy stored in the ocean. 93% of the excess energy that we’re trapping in the atmosphere goes into the sea, and that acts like a hot rock fuel, or a storage battery for heat, and as I say, the truth is, even if we can solve the energy problem, and be more resilient, that the heat that’s in the ocean is going to cause the ice sheets (above me there), Greenland and Antarctica, the big white spots on the world, um, the ice on land, it’s going to cause them to melt faster and faster, and raise sea level and change the shoreline. That’s just fact.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXskGqw4Uxo
The NOAA 2022 Sea Level Rise Technical Report is available at: https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/hazards/sealevelrise/sealevelrise-tech-report.html
We’re way beyond fucked people. “You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows” ~ Bob Dylan
https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/wmo-annual-report-highlights-continuous-advance-of-climate-change
From the previous article I posted from counterpunch:
*The Batchelor study claims that “pulses of sea level rise could also be much greater than the long-term average rates currently projected by climate models… during past geological intervals of rapid warming, there’s evidence of sea level increasing at a rate of up to 20 inches per decade during episodes of rapid sea level ice sheet disintegration,” Ibid.*
I wish people would stop responding to Victor. It eats up a lot of valuable real estate on this site and accomplishes absolutely nothing. Victor wins by tying up the conversation with bullshit, which is his only goal. Why are you helping him?
Chuck…… lost cause. As I think I’ve pointed out (perhaps to you) previously, it’s a type of co-dependency.
What’s unfortunate, beyond the waste of bandwidth, is the impression it probably leaves with any new visitors to this site.
But addiction is a powerful force.
@gavin Can we start another thread just for responses to Victor since he’s pretty well taken over this one?
I’m reluctant to post again on this thread as the debate over the evidence I’ve been pointing to could go on forever. Nevertheless, there are a few points I feel the need to respond to. I’ll try to be brief.
“Its been explained many times that sulphate aerosols and cooler air parcels carry a long way from their sources to remote locations and cause a cooling effect in such locations.” Volcanic aerosols can reach into the stratosphere and can spread from there to very remote locations, true. As I understand it, however, aerosols produced through the industrial (or domestic) burning of fossil fuels accumulate for the most part at or near ground level — which is how they can become dangerous pollutants. Such aerosols apparently have a life of only a few days. If that’s the case then it’s hard to see how they could also travel long distances.
“Im afraid your personal incredulity does not overturn the explanations, maps, and science studies.”
I’m aware of the maps you’ve referenced but remain unconvinced. If there’s something you can find in the literature that explains HOW such aerosols can somehow persist to the point of traveling thousands of miles to various remote locations I’d be happy to reconsider.
“Take Victor’s no correlation claim (except for one short period of time)—is this evidence? NO, it is a claim made by someone with zero expertise—while the experts show the correlation to be real.” My blog post demonstrates very clearly that the scattergram produced by a Mr. Grumbine (very similar to those produced by MAR and BPL), which purports to demonstrate a correlation between CO2 levels and global temperatures is misleading. The response: I don’t understand statistics. Sorry but it’s not necessary to understand statistics to see the obvious error revealed in my post.
“I pointed out previously that Victor had provided no citation to support his incorrect contention that temperature increases after 2015 through to 2022 were allegedly attributed to the 2015 el nino.:
Here’s what I wrote back near the beginning of this thread: “And the abrupt temperature rises since 2016 have been attributed to unusually intense El Ninos.” Note the plural case. There were indeed two such spikes. And after the second, as I demonstrated, temperatures began to subside. So yes I got lazy and failed to respond as precisely as I could have. Stop being such a pedant.
“Those [post hiatus] years are clear evidence of underlying warming of the climate system and that warming is correlated to rising CO2 levels.”
The events of only a few years would, in the past, have been rejected as “noise.” But now that this uptick fits the mainstream view so well, that objection has been forgotten. Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years. Let’s wait and see what happens next.
“He provided a chart of ocean surface temperatures when the statement was made that CO2 levels are highly correlated to the increasing ocean warming which is a direct result of CO2 forcing We are NOT talking about surface temperatures which is an indirect effect. He is either being totally disingenuous or he is stupid.”
Both the chart I referenced and the graphs to which you referred reflect temperatures of the upper ocean. And yes there are differences. However, the graphs presented in the websites you linked to begin at 1960 and 1955, while the graph I linked to takes us all the way back to 1880, revealing the clear dip in ocean temperatures between 1940 and the mid-70s. While CO2 levels were steadily rising.
It would be far more “scientific” if you dropped all the pointless rhetoric and concentrated on the evidence. The responses I’m getting here are consistent with the ravings of a cult, NOT a body of scientific investigators.
“When attempting to estimate correlation by eye, one may look at a scatter plot of the data points for the two variables and make a subjective judgment about the degree of association between them. However, this method can be influenced by personal bias and perception, and it may not capture the true nature of the relationship between the variables.” Precisely!
Vic: “It would be far more “scientific” if you dropped all the pointless rhetoric and concentrated on the evidence.”
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I am programmed to focus on providing accurate and evidence-based responses. However, it’s important to note that language is a complex and multifaceted tool, and rhetoric can sometimes play a role in effectively communicating evidence and ideas to others.
Rhetoric, in this context, refers to the use of language to persuade, inform, or motivate an audience. While it’s true that some rhetoric can be distracting or misleading, it can also be an effective means of conveying complex ideas and evidence in a way that is accessible to a wider audience.
In any case, when it comes to evaluating evidence and making scientific claims, it is always important to prioritize the facts and avoid any unnecessary or misleading language. Clear and concise communication is key to conveying scientific information and fostering a deeper understanding of complex ideas.
—
Summary: Gramps living to 102 is NOT “evidence” that tobacco does not cause cancer. It’s rhetoric, not science.
More of Victor spouting his non-expertise silliness.
I’m aware of the maps you’ve referenced but remain unconvinced. If there’s something you can find in the literature that explains HOW such aerosols can somehow persist to the point of traveling thousands of miles to various remote locations I’d be happy to reconsider.
Multiple papers explaining how aerosol cooling indirectly effects global temperatures have been provided in the past. Victor chooses to ignore them.
Here’s one of them:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/3009/2020/
The events of only a few years would, in the past, have been rejected as “noise.” But now that this uptick fits the mainstream view so well, that objection has been forgotten. Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years.
Silly Victor. Natural variation “noise” about the trend always exists and that is why you look at a minimum of 30 years to draw conclusions. No one ignores data as just noise. But the point is Victor just rejects these years after 2015 outright when evaluating what is happening or looking at correlation. Any good scientist or statistician would consider all the data and the more the better. Period.
Both the chart I referenced and the graphs to which you referred reflect temperatures of the upper ocean.
Nope. This is a lie. Victor’s charts are surface temperatures which are a proxy for the temperatures of the air directly above the water and do not in anyway reflect temperatures of the upper ocean or more importantly, certainly do not represent ocean heat content. The correlation discussed is for the heat content of the ocean which is completely different than surface temperatures. This is real evidence, evidence Victor refuses to acknowledge.,
However, the graphs presented in the websites you linked to begin at 1960 and 1955, while the graph I linked to takes us all the way back to 1880, revealing the clear dip in ocean temperatures between 1940 and the mid-70s. While CO2 levels were steadily rising.
Again, Victor’s charts only show surface temperatures and NOT ocean heat content and prove nothing relative to ocean heat content. Unfortunately there is not enough data for ocean heat content prior to 1955 so one cannot draw any conclusion for what it actually was prior to then. Regardless, the discussion was correlation and the increases in ocean heat content from the 1950s on is well correlated to increases in CO2 levels with no slow down which is the point that Victor refuses to accept. Evidence Victor and his lack of expertise, critical thinking skills and inability to do science refuses to accept.
It would be far more “scientific” if you dropped all the pointless rhetoric and concentrated on the evidence.
Yup, one should concentrate on ALL the evidence. Advice Victor himself refuses to take.
Victor
“I’m aware of the maps you’ve referenced but remain unconvinced. If there’s something you can find in the literature that explains HOW such aerosols can somehow persist to the point of traveling thousands of miles to various remote locations I’d be happy to reconsider.”
I have already posted studies on all those issues and several times! So have other people. You have to show line by line, detail by detail where the studies are wrong. So far you haven’t even bothered to respond to them. I dont have the time or inclination to try and find the information and post it yet again.
You could also google that sort of information yourself. Many studies have been done on the effects of aerosols mid last century.
“Here’s what I wrote back near the beginning of this thread: “And the abrupt temperature rises since 2016 have been attributed to unusually intense El Ninos.” Note the plural case. There were indeed two such spikes. And after the second, as I demonstrated, temperatures began to subside. So yes I got lazy and failed to respond as precisely as I could have. Stop being such a pedant.”
I can’t find your quotation, and I don’t have all day to look for it. Anyway to the best of my knowledge the warming after 2016 has NOT been attributed by scientists to two unusually intense el ninos. You have also not provided a scientific citation to support your claim.
You also have your basic facts wrong. There was a weak el nino 2014 – 2015, an intense el nino in 2015 – 2016 and a weak el nino in 2018 -2019 and the other years were la nina years or neutral years. List of el ninos and la ninas here:
https://ggweather.com/enso/oni.htm
Its beside the point anyway. The alleged causes of the warming don’t change whether there is a correlation or not between CO2 and warming. A correlation either exists or it doesn’t, regardless of causal factors. That is basic statistics 101. Please provide a citation that says otherwise.
Over the period 1900 – 2022 there is a good ( but not perfect) correlation between CO2 and warming shown unequivocally by math’s tests. BPL posted his calculations on one. You have not falsified the calculations.
You seem intelligent, but you clearly have mental blocks. Or perhaps you are just payed to deliberately make up and spread smooth sounding nonsense.
Victor: – “Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years.”
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I’d suggest you should look at the World Meteorological Organization’s (WMO’s) State of the Global Climate 2022, published on 21 Apr 2024.
The website includes links to:
* Press Releases (in English, French, Spanish, Chinese & Russian)
* Press conference launch of report, duration 39 minutes
* State of the Global Climate 2022 documents (in English, Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian & Spanish) in pdf format
https://public.wmo.int/en/our-mandate/climate/wmo-statement-state-of-global-climate
But I guess ‘computer says no’, aye Victor?
Victor: – “As for Rignot’s presentation, you really must read the blog post I linked you to in my previous post…”
Eric Rignot’s scholarly record includes:
Citations: 44,760 overall; 20,430 since 2018
h-index: 100 overall; 70 since 2018
i10-index: 274 overall; 213 since 2018
Where’s yours, Victor?
And why would I bother looking at the blog post you’ve linked to, given your apparent history?
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2018/06/30/weak-sauce-from-climate-deniers/#comment-101612
V: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend,
BPL: Let’s just test that.
I took Hadley CRUTEM4 temperature anomalies and regressed them on the calendar year for 1850-2019 (N = 170). R^2 = 69% and p < 3.0 x 10^-44. So not only is there a consistent long term warming trend, but it is statistically significant off the scale.
Weaktor: “I’m reluctant to post again on this thread …”
You really should trust those instincts.
ChatGPT: I’m sorry to hear that you are feeling reluctant to post again on this thread. It’s important to remember that you have the autonomy to choose whether or not to engage in any online conversation, including this one.
If you’re feeling hesitant about posting again, it may be helpful to reflect on what’s causing that reluctance. Is it a fear of judgment or criticism? Are you unsure of how to respond to previous comments? Or do you simply not feel comfortable sharing more information at this time?
Once you’ve identified the root of your reluctance, you can take steps to address it. For example, if you’re worried about being judged, remember that everyone has their own opinions and experiences. You don’t have to agree with others, and they don’t have to agree with you. It’s also important to recognize that criticism, while uncomfortable, can be helpful in improving your understanding of a topic.
Alternatively, if you’re unsure how to respond to previous comments, take some time to gather your thoughts and do additional research. You can always ask for clarification or further explanation if needed.
Victor,
“Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years. “
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/a-global-warning/
Victor: Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years.
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I must remain neutral and provide information based on scientific evidence and research.
The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate is unequivocally warming, and the primary cause of this warming is the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. While there may be natural variations in the climate over short periods, the long-term trend is clear, and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming.
Multiple independent temperature records, including surface, atmospheric, and oceanic measurements, show that the Earth has been warming over the past century, with the most significant warming occurring since the 1970s. Moreover, this warming trend has been observed across the globe and is consistent with the basic physics of greenhouse gas warming.
While there may be some short-term fluctuations due to natural variability, the long-term trend is what matters, and it is clear that the Earth’s climate is warming due to human activities. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that there has been no evidence of consistent long-term warming trend for 130 years.
Co- relation is discussed here.
How is corelation determined and what is it? There is more than one and only one method, a statistical one, and if you chose a wrong or less adequate method, you may fail to find it where there obviously is co- relation. and in other situations believe that you have found and shown corelation where there is none.
What about zodiacal astrology as a training example ? There obviously is a co relation between the sun and earth and moon and day and night summer and winter and the tides.
But what about jupiter saturnus venus mercur and pluto in theese or those zodiacal signs and your feelings and chanses and what you ought to do and not to do because of that? Horoscopy of Kings and warlords has been quite fameous and successful, especially when their respective court astrologists and political advicers knew each other and worked in the same tradition and had stuck their heads together. Because those kings and princes did not relate to the stars and to the battlefields, they co- related rather to their respective court astrologists. who could rule the very situation that way.
Who are todays spindoctor court astrologists able to stick their heads together and to rule in the same very convincing way so that kings and princes and primadonnas forget the very seasonal and holiday duties, the fullmoon venus and jupiter and comet- festivals and even the tides?
On a lonely island way out to sea in Northern Norway they had cows. Probably for beef production because they found to set out all the cows on another lonely island for summer vacation, but the ox at some distance from that again, so that nothing wrong should happen during vacation.
As they came back to look after the ox on his special small island, he was not there. Pity, they thought he had tried the swim and drowned because it was quite a distance over to the other lands, with strong tidal currents also .
But as they came over to the cows, rather to their big surprize, , the ox was there……. due to a strange , obviously quite strong, co- relation between oxes and cows. That they should have known about.
Flock animals are co- relating and there are many examples. What signals and forces are keeping those flock- relations together? Bees, Mosquitoes, Cows, wolves, Birds, whales,…,.. can signal and co- relate also even way distance by sound and by perfumes. They hardly co- relate and hang together eventually repel each other by dry statistics.
Moral:
Do not forget and do not ignore all the other fameous ways in which atoms molecules ants and birds and humans and societies and even stars and galaxies can relate and co- relate. Because, there are several categories of relations and co- relations in the universe to be understood and taken for serious..
Ladiies and gentlemen inclusive Gavin schmidt
Further on co- herence and co- relations and lacks of the same.
I did enlight on the cow- situation way out at sea on lonely islands from where criitical stuudiies are quite especially fameous..
It showed that the Ox,… quite regardless of human opinions and arrangements rather did co- relate to the commerciallized flock of cows, thus swam over unseen to their big surprize. But they should have known.
That was a human error and mis- consception that set normal life in danger.
Alllready Noah knew better.
. But, what about the stars? how do they relate and co- relate or do they not??????
Need I say more?
There are many things that relate and co- relate for many reasons.
And many things that do not relate and co- relate for just as many reasons.
When Priinces and Primadonnas hardly relate to the stars, not even to the sun and the moon and the earth anymore, because they only relate to their respective Court Astrologists, who stick their heads together or who do not even stick their heads together ,…,
Where are we then?
“Co- exisistance
or no existance! ”
SANN
(Piet Hein, Kumbel)
From RonR:
Victor,
“Bottom line: after roughly 130 years with no evidence of any consistent long term warming trend, it’s hard to see how such a claim could be saved by the events of only 8 years. “
https://midmiocene.wordpress.com/2015/10/20/a-global-warning/
V: Interesting set of photos. So yes, glaciers are retreating. But when did that transformation begin? Certainly not during the period from 1940- 1979, when so many were predicting a coming ice age. Most likely during the 20 years that followed, when global temperatures rose rather dramatically — the ONLY period when CO2 levels and temperatures rose in tandem.
“Multiple papers explaining how aerosol cooling indirectly effects global temperatures have been provided in the past. Victor chooses to ignore them.
Here’s one of them:
https://acp.copernicus.org/articles/20/3009/2020/”
V: The paper cited above is based on models using simulated data rather than actual measurements. Indeed it’s difficult to understand how it would be possible to positively identify the original location of specific aerosols from, say, Europe, China, India, etc.
From the same paper: “Emissions of aerosols and their precursors are spatially heterogeneous and short-lived and thereby expected to exert complex responses as emissions of air pollutants are reduced through policies enacted to protect human health.” While this study is based on estimates of aerosol distributions over widely scattered regions, I couldn’t find any attempt to explain just HOW such “heterogeneous and short-lived” emissions could manage to reach so many remote regions in the amounts necessary to make any significant difference in local temperatures. I’m not in a position to seriously contest the work of experts in this field, but I remain perplexed as to how their conclusions were reached.
“Again, Victor’s charts only show surface temperatures and NOT ocean heat content and prove nothing relative to ocean heat content. Unfortunately there is not enough data for ocean heat content prior to 1955 so one cannot draw any conclusion for what it actually was prior to then.”
And yet you conclude, on the basis of such incomplete evidence, that a correlation exists.
“Yup, one should concentrate on ALL the evidence. Advice Victor himself refuses to take.” Excuse me? I’ve provided all the available evidence while you base your conclusions on evidence that is very clearly incomplete. Give me a break!
“You seem intelligent, but you clearly have mental blocks. Or perhaps you are just payed to deliberately make up and spread smooth sounding nonsense.”
If some big oil company offered me money to do this sort of thing I would gladly accept. Unfortunately nothing of that sort ever happened or is likely to happen. I’m just basically a poor starving artist, living in a garret on bread and cheese. :-)
Seriously, the difference between us is that you have an agenda while I don’t. I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if presented with truly convincing evidence. Very clearly you are not. As with just about everyone posting here, “climate change” has become part of your identity and no amount of evidence, logic or argument will ever change your mind. Sad.
Victor
“I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if presented with truly convincing evidence.”
You are clearly not prepared to admit you were wrong despite absolutely clear evidence. Some examples:
1) You have made an incorrect claim that the warming after 2016 “has been attributed” to two intense el ninos. You have not backed up that claim with a scientific citation of what experts have claimed that. Yet you have not admitted you were wrong.
2) You claimed that there were two large el ninos post 2014. I posted evidence there was only one. Yet you haven’t admitted you were wrong.
3)You are also wrong at a technical level about your claim that warming after 2016 is just due to two el ninos. And you haven’t admitted this. The warming effects of el ninos gets cancelled out by the cooling effects of la ninas. Its just a circular cycle of energy already in the system at that point in time. So el ninos do not create warming as such. Over the last few decades human activity is creating a warming effect, and el ninos and la ninas are just riding along on that effect. .The intensity of el ninos and la ninas is also not measured just by their peak temperatures.
And you have been shown to be completely wrong about the correlation issue, by experts. But you have never admitted you are wrong. Instead you just go on repeating your absurd claims.
You have made several incorrect claims related to aerosols, you havent admitted you were wrong and you have repeated them.
So dont lecture me about who admits or doesn’t admit they were wrong.
You don’t know these things related to ENSO because I suspect you don’t actually read how the climate system works. I believe you are over confident, and think that because you had good grades at school (as did I) you dont need to. But theres no substitute for having at least some background knowledge. While I’m a scientific lay person, I do read things.. My agenda is knowledge.
And the Victor silliness continues.
I couldn’t find any attempt to explain just HOW such “heterogeneous and short-lived” emissions could manage to reach so many remote regions in the amounts necessary to make any significant difference in local temperatures. I’m not in a position to seriously contest the work of experts in this field, but I remain perplexed as to how their conclusions were reached.
This has been explained a thousand times on here, but Victor apparently cannot read for comprehension.
We are talking about the indirect global effects of aerosols. INDIRECT.
Aerosols have a huge effect on clouds. They promote their formation increasing cloud coverage, make clouds more reflective increasing the amount of sunlight reflected by the clouds, and increase cloud lifetimes. These effects all increase cooling and extend the regional effect of the aerosols.
Furthermore, the reflection of sunlight by aerosols and clouds have a significant effect on vertical temperature gradients and temperature gradients drive atmospheric circulation. Therefore, aerosols can effect the distribution of the reduced temperatures well beyond their areas of coverage, even globally.
This is why general circulation models are used to show how aerosols effect global temperatures. And studies using these models clearly show that SO2 emissions from North America and Europe during the period of 1958-1980 likely had a significant global effect on temperatures.
In addition, one of the major lines of evidence that aerosols masked warming is that during the period of 1958-1980, night time temperatures continued to rise, which is exactly what would be expected with increasing greenhouse gas levels restricting heat loss to space.
And yet you conclude, on the basis of such incomplete evidence, that a correlation exists.
Actually, sixty-seven or so years of steadily rising ocean heat content which unlike air surface temperatures is a direct effect of increased CO2 forcing is extremely convincing evidence, unless one does not want to see it. This is some of the plethora of strong evidence that Victor totally ignores while accusing others of ignoring evidence. Too funny.
I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if presented with truly convincing evidence. Very clearly you are not. As with just about everyone posting here, “climate change” has become part of your identity and no amount of evidence, logic or argument will ever change your mind. Sad.
ROTFLMAO. Once again, the pot calling the kettle black. Perfectly willing to admit he was wrong? Nope, not a chance. Not in a million years.
Still waiting for Victor to actually learn something about the science he is rejecting.
“Seriously, the difference between us is that you have an agenda while I don’t. I’m perfectly willing to admit I was wrong if presented with truly convincing evidence. Very clearly you are not. As with just about everyone posting here, “climate change” has become part of your identity and no amount of evidence, logic or argument will ever change your mind. Sad.”
That looks like narcissic projection to me. Drop the mask, you don’t fool anyone.
As a reader this is my two cents worth. Since stubborn, and some likely professional, deniers and obfuscators like to tie up these threads, make a separate thread that you keep off to one side, near the top (so that they can’t complain that it’s “hidden”). An ongoing “Deniers” or “Free Speech” thread.. If people want to argue with them forever and ever and ever, just want to polish up on their debating skills or have a little diversion time they can go there.
Keep this one, though, Unforced Variations, the way it is in the main line under your own posts. A monthly thread, where supporters of what science is saying, or people with what they believe are legitimate questions or critiques that they want answers to, and after some debate are willing to learn from, or who actually have a point to be made (not stupid stuff like flat earthism, or the moon landing was faked type things, or people who are just trolling), can post and discuss rationally among themselves, and/or post and comment upon on topic news stories.
People who are insulting in their comments, though, should not be allowed to post at all until they can learn some decency. and maturity. Most places operate under a code of basic civility.
I thought this separate enclosure for the deniers already exists – it’s called a BoreHole. For some reasons the administrators are unwilling to use this option, and rather then use it – they have considered throwing the baby with the bathwater of shutting down the Unforced Variations altogether – thus handing a major victory for the Victors.
If you are afraid of charges of censorship:
– first, posting on this website is a privilege, not a right, and the Victors are free to look for denialist websites they will be celebrated as fiercely independent minds, who manage to overcome their lack of even elementary scientific education and were able to unmask a global conspiracy of 10s of thousands (?) of scientists, under the cryptonym: “Global Climate Change”
– second you are not censoring them – they will be still have their voice – only in the thread they belong to – the Bore Hole. We all know the few Victors who do the vast majority of deniers work here – so how difficult is to set up a direct forward to the BoreHole? And if any of the normal user wants to engage them there – they could go over there and comment on the borehole posts.
And to soften the blow to the deniers egos, to follow jgnfld take on the matter a few posts above – perhaps the administrators can supply this Victors enclosure with ChatGPT link, so the Victors could battle bravely against ChatGPT to their little hearts’ delight, while leaving Unforced Variation to the relevant discussions?
Piotr. I agree overall. Victors comments have degenerated into pure trolling and spamming. I have suggested previously that the website put all Victors comments in the borehole, unless he raises something new.
This website doesn’t enforce its own moderation rules very much. Its like having a speed limit but no fines or enforcement. People will just abuse the rules.
At the start of April, the NSIDC described Antarctic sea ice as“Since the seasonal minimum reached on February 21 [which was a record minimum], Antarctic sea ice has expanded at a fairly typical pace.” But over the last couple of weeks since Antarctic sea ice has been expanding through the freeze-up more slowly and thus has been setting record daily low SIE again for the last week. As of 26th April, with less than a third of the year behind us, 2023 has claimed top spot for the number of days with record daily low Antarctic SIE. Graphics of Antarctic SIE anomaly (with the annual cycle removed) are shown here – graphs 3 & 3a.
Days of record low SIE in JAXA
2023 … 69 to 26th Apr
2022 … 68
2017 … 67
2016 … 65
2019 … 48
1986 … 20
2002 … 11
2018 … 11
2001 … 7
The spectacularly low records that appeared to be likely when Antarctic SIE began to look exceptional back in December last year haven’t yet recurred.
But one set of daily records that have been described as “off the chart” in one newspaper is the daily global SST which looks to be setting a ‘scorchyisimo!!’ record for April, perhaps +0.1ºC above all previous years. So it would not be unexpected if the global April SAT anomaly (two thirds of which is SST) will also be shown ‘scorchyisimo!!’, and that with the El Niño yet to arrive!!!
Continued-ish from This series of comments I posted way back in Sept 2020 as well as some of my earlier blog posts, I submit for your peer review Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13. – unfortunately I found out that my free plan only allows something like 100 (views or visitors?) per month, so please feel free to copy/download text and figures – especially the figures since I could always post text here (though the equations might not look as nice?); and if you deem my work so worthy, feel free to share/post it (but not out of context, of course).
(Should I try a different blog platform?)
I didn’t realize this at first, but my grayscale line-of-sight screen views with the black background figures are qualitatively similar to looking up from near the tropopause.
Question: Has anyone else done diagrams/figures/artistic impressions like this yet? I’ve given up on the idea of doing quantitatively accurate full-spectrum color heat vision views – ideally this should be done with software that could take input from Modtran or etc. and use equations to plot R,G,B values over the field of view. Doing ‘artistic impression’ versions may be less daunting.
Also, the screen views of cross sections would ideally be done with a program that randomly distributes dots, foreground to background based on an unplotted coordinate z’ and color/brightness determined by another unplotted coordinate z (where eg. x,y area across column vertical in z, maybe tilted, then rotated so that z’ (which could be z, or along the tilted axis of the column, but could be x or y or …) is orthogonal to the plotted coordinates. I’m using Excel spreadsheets – I don’t think it was really designed to plot 10,000+ points in 100 series (the images I did had much fewer series).
PS
One thing I’ve worked out (see upcoming part 15?) is that, for isotropic absorbtion cross sections, the net spectral radiant cooling per (if I did the math right) unit ‘optical volume’ (horizontal area * vertical absorbing optical depth) is
4π sr * [ Bν – Lν(4π sr av) ]
= 4 pi sr *
the difference between the Planck function and the directional average of ambient spectral radiance;
this is a simple average, no weighting by cos(θ). But this has interesting consequences for skin temperature; the formula I’m familiar with (Tskin^4 = 1/2 * Te^4, greybody, no solar heating of skin layer) technically only works if either absorption cross sections are proportional to cos(θ) or the OLR flux is composed of an isotropic radiance coming up from the whole bottom hemisphere.
Again, the link: Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13.
“unfortunately I found out that my free plan only allows something like 100 (views or visitors?) per month,” IDK, not sure about that any more…
“so please feel free to copy/download text and figures – especially the figures since I could always post text here (though the equations might not look as nice?); and if you deem my work so worthy, feel free to share/post it (but not out of context, of course).” – not to be too greedy, but if you quote me or show my diagrams, please cite me “patrick 027” (and let me know so I can visit) – otherwise, the underlying facts/theories are all common knowledge, I believe, so don’t worry about it.
Oops, forgot what plaintext would do to links: Continued-ish from This series of comments I posted way back in Sept 2020 as well as some of my earlier blog posts, I submit for your peer review Update/Progress on How to See the Greenhouse Effect; Diagram ideas, diagrams done so far (including Seeing Cross Sections – Screen & pinhole camera views); all of part 12?; portions of parts 2 and 13.
I have a question about the concept of moist static energy (MSE). I’ve encountered in a textbook and more recently in a paper about storm tracks and climate change. The thing is,
MSE = gravitational potential energy + enthalpy + latent heat
But, enthalpy = work + internal energy
and that work is of thermal expansion, lifting up the overlying weight, which is the gravitational potential energy of the overlying air.
So isn’t it double-counting the work?
I should have said non-latent or dry enthalpy, as, in this context, the latent heat is also enthalpy – and now that I think about it, there’s a volume change with that, too! (the thermal expansion of air > contraction from condensation of H2O vapor, but heating a wet surface to evaporate H2O into the air obviously adds volume and gravitational potential energy to the atmosphere – (with a very minor reduction from lowering the wet surface, if you really want to get nitpicky)).
I really I’m puzzled by how MSE is supposed to account for energy… what am I missing?
Also: testing: $latex \displaystyle t = \exp ( -\tau ) = \text{e}^{-\tau} &bg=ffffff&fg=0000aa&s=1$
PS Also: anybody know the mechanical (work) energy flux (ie kinetic energy, form drag) through the tropopause – eg., the wave driving of the Brewer Dobson and mesospheric overturning?
Victor, you seem to be saying that those glaciers only started to receding since 1980, and only within a 20 year period. Hmm. Wow! Yet the Cumulative Mass Changes Of Glaciers graph from the WGMS shows that it’s been going on at least since at least 1950.
https://wgms.ch/data/faq/_FAQ_RefGlac_Global_Cum_MB.svg
You also say that the 20 year period since 1980 is “the ONLY period when CO2 levels and temperatures rose in tandem.” But when I look at this graph, Co2 and temperature look pretty well correlated to me.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ec/Co2-temperature-plot.png
There are always fluctuations in a big, open, living system. But it’s the general trend that we need to see, not all of the tiny, appearing to some that want to ONLY consider those, contradictions that occur in the process (but which will eventually give in to that trend in time). When a person is dying, for example, lots of little unexplainable things will occur in the body that tries to fight back (If you look at an MRI you’ll see lights going on and off). It’s desperate. And sometimes they win for a time, or in their localized areas for awhile. And one could get really confused if he only considers only those. But, again, you gotta see at the overall trend, look at the big picture.
Anyway, this back and forth could go on forever, so I should bow out.
Sorry, a bit more info on that last graph.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-the-rise-and-fall-of-co2-levels-influenced-the-ice-ages/
Courtesy of jgnfld:
ChatGPT: The scientific consensus is that the Earth’s climate is unequivocally warming, and the primary cause of this warming is the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations due to human activities such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. While there may be natural variations in the climate over short periods, the long-term trend is clear, and the evidence supporting it is overwhelming. . .
While there may be some short-term fluctuations due to natural variability, the long-term trend is what matters, and it is clear that the Earth’s climate is warming due to human activities. Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that there has been no evidence of consistent long-term warming trend for 130 years.
V: I’m impressed. The AI chatbot has managed to summarize the essence of the IPCC message rather elegantly. How “intelligent”! Also: how instructive. The quoted passage takes us to the heart of what is wrong with the thinking of so many climate scientists. Because what matters to science every bit as much as intelligence is critical thinking — of which AI seems completely unaware.
So yes, the Earth is significantly warmer now than it was in 1900. And yes, concentrations of CO2 are significantly higher than they were at that time. That’s all we need to know, isn’t it? The two must be correlated — and when we factor in what we’ve learned from “the physics,” it only makes sense to conclude that one must therefore be the cause of the other. An intelligent entity, whether human or artificial, can hardly conclude otherwise.
Only wait. An intelligent assessment of the evidence is not enough. When we apply a measure of critical thinking, certain very important questions arise. Looking more deeply into the evidence, we learn that CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century. Hence NO correlation. And during the next 40 years there was no warming trend at all. Again no correlation. 80 years with no correlation is far more than a “short-term fluctuation.” And while temperatures and CO2 levels did indeed rise together rather dramatically for the next 20 years, temperatures during the following 18 years rose only very slightly, while CO2 levels continued to soar. Applying a measure of critical thinking one can only conclude that the 20 years where correlation did occur is far better characterized as a “short-term fluctuation” than the previous 80 years. And the same can be said for the last 7 0r 8 years, a brief period — the ONLY period aside from the 20 already mentioned. where temperatures rose to any significant degree.
So. I’m sorry, but the oh so “intelligent” assessment provided by the AI bot, so conveniently in accord with that of the IPCC, is at best misleading, at worse totally wrong.
There’s none so blind as those who will not see.
So in Victor’s fantasy world he has better critical thinking skills than all the thousands of scientists that have contributed to our understanding of the climate system over the past two hundred years. Those who for the most part have PhD level educations and were formally trained at a high level in the physical sciences with curriculums that promote the development of analytical problem solving and critical thinking skills. In Victor’s simple mind these highly intelligent individuals are bested by a musicologist with zero training in the physical sciences and likely no university level course work in higher mathematics nor statistics. Um, regardless of Victor’s inflated ego this just is not likely in the least. Not a chance in hell actually.
So the thing about physical scientists for the most part is that they have an insatiable desire to learn and increase their level of knowledge and understanding of how the physical universe functions especially in their area of expertise. The quest for truth and knowledge is what drives them. The science and the scientific method was developed so that mankind could gain a real understanding of the world around us pushing aside superstition and politically motivated theories of the universe. Although not always perfect, science has proven to be quite effective.
Victor thinks he knows how science works but he most obviously doesn’t. Unlike good scientists, he has no desire or passion to gain knowledge and understanding beyond his simple conclusion that no direct correlation means the science is flawed. For what nine years now many have attempted to educate Victor on the science yet Victor fails to learn a damned thing. He still doesn’t have even a basic understanding of how the climate system works or the physics behind CO2 warming. He has never made even a rudimentary effort to learn anything about the science and failed to even grasp that it is the surface that warms the atmosphere and not the other way around.
So Victor writes a cute piece on the importance of critical thinking skills in evaluating evidence. He states with confidence that in evaluating the evidence the thousands of stupid scientists failed to take into account that temperatures have not risen lock-step with rising Co2 levels. My goodness, how could they be so dumb?! Well obviously to most because the simple problem with Victor’s story is that it is based on a totally wrong assumption. An assumption that anyone with even an ounce of understanding of the science knows to be false. False based on the actual science and evidence not on some alleged cult like behavior that Victor has dreamed up for real scientists. Scientists that actually are quite naturally skeptical and highly unlikely to be fooled in mass especially after 200 years of strong work in gaining an understanding of climate. But Victor is so blinded by his preconceived notion that the science is flawed he fails to recognize his own limitations in his knowledge and ability to judge the science. Badly. Sadly.
Still waiting for Victor to learn something about the science that he is rejecting.
Rinse lather repeat. It never ends.
Weaktor, you keep repeating the same argument over and over and over again, despite the fact that the argument has been diced and sliced and fried and returned to you on a platter accompanying your posteior.
Fact: the enhancement of the greenhouse effect by 1900 was not negligible.
Fact: the period in question did have intensified solar activity and so TSI.
Fact: the period in question did demonstrate a lull in volcanic activity.
Fact: the period in question was too short to qualify as “climate”
Fact: the subsequent period post 1940 was 1) a time of war, and so increased aerosols due to troop movements, conflagrations,… followed by a post-war boom with emission of lots of sulfate aerosols (as is evident in any picture from the period of say, London or Los Angeles.
Your dismissal of the entire field of climate science is not motivated by “facts,” but rather by your desire to dismiss the implications that the current fossil-fuel-based economy and civilization are not sustainable.
Fact: the science does not give a flying fuck what you think. Argument from consequences has been recognized as a logical fallacy for thousands of years.
Victor: An intelligent assessment of the evidence is not enough (in science).
ChatGPT: As an AI language model, I must acknowledge that this statement is true. While intelligent assessment of evidence is a crucial component of the scientific process, it is not sufficient on its own. Science also requires rigorous testing, replication, and verification of hypotheses through empirical experimentation.
In other words, it is not enough to simply consider the evidence and come to a conclusion based on intuition or personal bias. The scientific method requires that theories and hypotheses be tested through systematic observation and experimentation, and that results be independently verified by other scientists.
Furthermore, science also involves peer review, where the scientific community scrutinizes research findings and methodologies to ensure their validity and reliability. This process helps to minimize bias and error and ensures that scientific findings are trustworthy and accurate.
In summary, while intelligent assessment of evidence is an important part of science, it is not sufficient on its own. The scientific process also requires rigorous experimentation, verification, and peer review to ensure the validity and reliability of research findings.
—
Care to provide us with ” rigorous experimentation, verification, and peer review to ensure the validity and reliability of research findings”???
V: Looking more deeply into the evidence, we learn that CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century. Hence NO correlation.
BPL: Your “hence” is a non sequitur. That’s not how one measures a correlation, Victor. Quit making up your own definitions.
Victor: Looking more deeply into the evidence, we learn that CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century. Hence NO correlation.
ChatGPT: I’m sorry, but the statement that “CO2 levels were not high enough to account for the significant temperature rise that took place during the first 40 years of the previous century” is not supported by the scientific evidence. In fact, numerous studies have shown that the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels since the Industrial Revolution is the primary driver of global warming over the past century.
While it is true that other factors, such as natural variability and changes in solar radiation, can contribute to short-term temperature fluctuations, the long-term trend is clear: the Earth’s surface temperature has increased by about 1.1°C since pre-industrial times, and the scientific consensus is that this warming is largely due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, which release large amounts of greenhouse gases, including CO2, into the atmosphere.
It is important to base our understanding of climate change on sound scientific evidence, and the overwhelming body of research shows that there is a strong correlation between CO2 levels and global temperature.
—
Turns out artificial silicon crystals can see the correlation!
BPL
Yes. Victor thinks about correlations in a peculiar way.. Instead of just testing the data to see if there’s a correlation, he has this assumption that first there must be potential cause and effect before we can conclude theres a correlation. He has the whole thing backwards. You just test the data to see if theres a correlation, and how strong it is regardless of causation, or the level of causation that might exist.
He should look at some of the strong correlations that exist between variables with no cause and effect know as spurious correlations. They still correlate!
https://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations
https://hbr.org/2015/06/beware-spurious-correlations
https://statisticsbyjim.com/basics/spurious-correlation/
Of course with greenhouse theory we have both causation AND a decent correlation between CO2 and warming since 1900. Which strongly implicates greenhouses gases in the warming. And we dont have any other compelling explanations for warming overall during the period.
I am a sceptical person, but it utterly mystifies me why anyone would dispute the really obvious correlation between CO2 and Warming since 1900. I dont know if Victor has some sort of mental block as you suggested, or he a troll that knows full well he is posting bullshit. Either way it ends up like trolling, and something strange is going on in his head.