Going back a few months, I spent a bit of time pointing out the strategy and nonsense in the various Willie Soon and company’s efforts to blame current warming on solar activity. I specifically pointed out their cultish devotion to a single solar activity reconstruction (Hoyt and Schatten, 1993) (HS93); with an update from Scaffeta (2023), and their increasingly elaborate efforts to create temperature series that correlate to it.
Well, Theodosios Chatzistergos has just published a deep dive into the HS93 reconstruction (Chatzistergos, 2024) (C24) and… let’s say the results will not be surprising to regular readers.
In the beginning
The basic idea of HS93 was reasonable (IMO), to use multiple indices related to solar activity to create a composite reconstruction of Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) that would be more robust than one based on any single index which might have some specific issues. HS93 assembled five hypothesized time series: annual sunspot numbers (and an 11-yr smoothed version), the solar cycle length (SCL), solar-cycle decay rate, equatorial solar rotation, and the fraction of penumbral spots. As we discussed before, the SCL index was included because of the (then recent) result from Friis-Christensen and Lassen (1991) connecting SCL to temperature. However, as we discussed last time, this result was an artifact of the smoothing procedure (Laut, 2003) and despite some further efforts by those authors to rescue it, there turns out to be no relationship to temperature at all. Furthermore, the last index is rather poorly described and may just be noise. Each of the five indices was then scaled and merged. There was also a calibration of one of the free parameters to match a presumed Maunder Minimum value (but more on this later).
Chatzistergos was able to update and extend all of these data series to the present and use the HS93 procedure to make a new reconstruction. Ideally, this would have produced a reconstruction that resembled HS93, but extended to the near-present, but… this is not how it turned out.
In reproducing the methodology Chatzistergos discovered multiple inconsistencies, an undocumented implicit forecast of future solar cycles (which did not pan out), and a number of artifacts which served to produce a artificial positive trend from 1960 onward.
First, HS93 lagged the smoothed sunspot numbers by a full solar cycle, based on the assumption that the TSI lagged long-term smoothed sunspots (based on a suggestion in the literature at that time). However, in shifting the sunspots back 11 years, they needed to assume sunspot values for the future to predict TSI to 1992, and the way they chose to extend them was nowhere documented (but, in retrospect, it was clear in their figure 8). This component then ended up with a strong uptick from ~1960 to 1992 that was essentially invented.
How the extension was done is curious. C24 suggested that it was a linear extension of the previous decade, but I think that a closer inspection of their Figure 8 suggests that the extra years of the smoothed sunspots was just copied from the last 11 years of the fraction of penumbral spots offset to match the last actual sunspot value. I can think of no valid reason for this.
Second, the solar-cycle-decay time series also seems to have been offset by about 10 years (again undocumented). Third, the equatorial rotation rate was similarly difficult to reproduce. And finally, the creation of the fraction of penumbral spots was taken from two distinct datasets without consideration of the biases they may have had with respect to each other, which also created an artificial rise at the end of the time series. Overall, not an easy paper to replicate!
There is one further free parameter that sets the long term trend. In HS93, it is a little ambiguous, but in their book (Hoyt and Schatten, 1997)) they say explicitly that it is based on Lean et al (1992), which in turn was based on a scaling of cycling to non-cycling stars from Baliunas and Jastrow (1990). I’ll note that this is what I said previously, but this was vigorously denied by Soon and colleagues in a recent blog post. (Forgive them, for they know not what they talk about).
Putting it all together
Chatzistergos was basically able to recreate something very close to the original HS93 (his figure 7b):
But he was also able to demonstrate the impact of the artifacts introduced at the time, as well as the impact of updates to the component datasets and a more appropriate long-term scaling. The results are impressively different:
Without the artificial boost in the sunspot numbers, and the mixing of disparate data sources in the penumberal spot fraction, and without the invalid long-term trend, surprisingly, the methods of HS93 would have given a reconstruction like most others. The trends would have been negative from the 1950s peak (as in the other reconstructions), and the search for temperature indices that matched it would have been futile.
I predict that none of this will prevent Soon and colleagues continuing to cling to the original HS93, or it’s purported extension from Scafetta (which did not dig into the original methodology at all). But maybe they will surprise me. Maybe they will acknowledge the shenanigans and move on to more valid arguments? I won’t hold my breath.
[*] I realise I’m overusing the word shenanigans, but it’s alliterative and appropriate!
Update [3/15]: In their (extremely long) response, Connolly, Soon, et al., agree that the Chatzistergos update ingredients are fine, but prefer a much larger long-term scaling (based on their stated desire to match the temperature data) than what was used in Figure 4. This is backwards. The scaling should be constrained based on the match to the actual TSI records (which weren’t sufficiently available in 1993), not on one’s prior assumptions about how TSI influences temperature. But, and this is the problem, a larger scaling produces a reconstruction that does very poorly in reconstructing the satellite era observations (even the ACRIM version, yellow/red lines), as seen below (purple line).
There is no valid scientific justification for their choice.
References
- D.V. Hoyt, and K.H. Schatten, "A discussion of plausible solar irradiance variations, 1700‐1992", Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics, vol. 98, pp. 18895-18906, 1993. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/93JA01944
- N. Scafetta, "Empirical assessment of the role of the Sun in climate change using balanced multi-proxy solar records", Geoscience Frontiers, vol. 14, pp. 101650, 2023. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gsf.2023.101650
- T. Chatzistergos, "A Discussion of Implausible Total Solar-Irradiance Variations Since 1700", Solar Physics, vol. 299, 2024. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11207-024-02262-6
- P. Laut, "Solar activity and terrestrial climate: an analysis of some purported correlations", Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, vol. 65, pp. 801-812, 2003. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1364-6826(03)00041-5
- D.V. Hoyt, and K.H. Shatten, "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change", 1997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195094138.001.0001
- J. Lean, A. Skumanich, and O. White, "Estimating the Sun's radiative output during the Maunder Minimum", Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 19, pp. 1591-1594, 1992. http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/92GL01578
- S. Baliunas, and R. Jastrow, "Evidence for long-term brightness changes of solar-type stars", Nature, vol. 348, pp. 520-523, 1990. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/348520a0
@damagedonegr did a nice thread: a few weeks ago:
https://x.com/damagedonegr/status/1758191910462648487
Ce document n’est pas digne du niveau de votre site et est même d’une indigence scientifique déplorable.
Chacun sait que le facteur TSI est important dans les grandes séquences de perturbations plaire et à eu ses effets majeurs (si délétères pour le bien-être humain, via le petit âge glaciaire) … lors des derniers siècles, par ses grands « minimums »
Tout dignes climatologue … et j’aimerais conserver Gavin dans cette classification, .. sait parfaitement que le véritable enjeu climatique est dans la formule :
W = TSI ( 1 – a ) avec : (a) taux de renvoi albédo.
Or ce facteur (a) a une variabilité de l’ordre de 0,5 % par décennie ce qui en fait LE facteur majeur de causalité
La variation actuelle en est la stricte transformée via l’énergie solaire absorbée par les océans et sa restitution vers l’atmosphère au rythme des états de surface des grandes « oscillations » ENSO et AMO
j-c says:
Clarification is needed. Are you saying that solar activity outside the enormously consequential annual and daily cycles, i..e. relating to sunspot cycles, are responsible for controlling ocean cycles such as ENSO and AMO? Or are you suggesting that it is ENSO and AMO that are driving albedo variations, which is an indirect mechanism for changing the absorption of solar radiation?
It is an enduring observation that whenever you look up the value of albedo it’s invariably given as 0.3 (or 1-A=0.7). Why isn’t this value of A ever estimated with more significant digits? To someone with a scientific or technical background the assumption is that +/- 0.1 is the implied uncertainty level, which of course has ramifications for the earth’s quasi-equilibrium temperature. It would inspire more confidence in the technically-aware layperson if this was given as 0.31 or 0.30, as this would reduce the implied uncertainty level to +/- 0.01.. Following Stefan-Boltzmann, this would reduce the uncertainty in the Earth’s quasi-equilibrium temperature from +/- 10 degrees C to +/- 1 C. This may be the concern that j-c blais is pointing out.
PP,
I use the figure 0.295 for Earth’s albedo, but there are error bars on it. All the satellite figures range between 0.33 and 0.28, but that’s not really enough to pin down extra significant digits. I should have an article out soon with an appendix on Earth albedo determinations; I’ll leave the citation here as soon as it’s available.
I was almost inclined to respond in German, a more sophisticated language, just to keep the balance.. ;)
I think this is a wonderful example on how the whole discussion fails, and both sides are to blame. Climate science claims the black body temperature of Earth was 255K, based on albedo and TSI. The other side than reasons, if the albedo drops, which apparently it did over the last decades, that would fully explain current warming. Equally if clouds are cooling and cloud cover diminishes, that will explain the warming. And they would be right, if the starting points were correct. They are not!
You can not calculate the temperature by only including albedo (or rather absorptivity which is 1-a), while neglicting emissivity. The peak temperature of the moon at 394K is a perfect example. Say the albedo was 0.12 then you’d get (1368 * (1 – 0.12) / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 381.7K. Does the moon have a GHE of about 12K?? Of course not. Rather as its absorptivity will be ~0.88, its emissivity will equally be ~0.88, so that both terms cancel out. (1368 * (0.88/0.88) / 5.67e-8)^0.25 = 394K
For the surface of Earth something very similar is true, although the absorptivity of water is somewhat larger than its emissivity. Without atmosphere the surface, as it is, would take on ~280K. The integrated atmosphere effect (as opposed to the GHE that is only about the emission side) thus is only ~8K. Similar to that of Venus at 1bar pressure level btw. Only looking at the albedo is missing the complete picture.
Similar thing goes for clouds. The CRE is actually larger than the albedo effect, so clouds should be warming(!). It is just that 60% of it is overlapped with other GH constituents. If you only take the net CRE (~30W/m2), then clouds should be cooling. What is true? Hard to tell, we only know ignoring this issue based on a “what difference do clouds make” logic, as climate science does, is a blunder.
Jean claude (unknowingly) exploits both issues to argue some phantasy results. Eventually the same thing goes for Soon’s “it’s the sun” story. Regardless if TSI varies by 1 or 4W/m2, it would still require huge feedbacks to have a measurable effect. Why he insists on such feedbacks to solar forcing, while denying them for anth. forcings, is another inconstistent story. Anyway, the feedback assumption and the huge uncertainty there, is another exploit.
Imagine building a modern aircraft with multiple faulty components. The will not just cause problems, but rather those problems will multiply just because of the complexity of the undertaking. Climate science, I am afraid, is stricken with such messy simplifications that cause a mayhem downstream. Especially if people take these simplifications at face value.
Since I’m the simplification guy around here, allow me to explain the problem.
1. There was the planet before we increased CO2.
2. We increased CO2, which absorbs outgoing radiant energy and converts it to thermal energy. This is directly observable.
3. Absent any mechanism to remove that energy, the energy of the system must increase.
So, when people play along with the Soon-type claims, and go into great detail about why those calculations are “wrong”, they are ignoring basic scientific practice. The most obvious issue is parsimony.
It may be gratifying to people to show their superior skill with the numbers, but it is not at all necessary. If Soon says “the sun is causing the energy in the system to increase by X”, and we already have demonstrated a mechanism causing an increase by X, the correct response is:
OK, but what happened to the first X, caused by CO2??
Engaging with these people on their terms provides them with validation, creating a false equivalence for the public without the background to evaluate the claim. We need to stop playing defense and maintain control of the framing. The essentials of the science are settled… start there.
Willie is not a simplification kind of guy.
His ” CERES team ” instant response to Chatzistergos :
https://www.ceres-science.com/post/response-to-chatzistergos-2024
is 13,897 words long !
[Response: Methinks he doth protest too much… – gavin]
You are probably right to “predict that none of this will prevent Soon and colleagues continuing to cling to the original HS93.” insofar as Willie is still clinging to the coattails of J& B 9o- he got his Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics affiliation as Balliunas’ coauthor
ES,
The emissivity of a planet is taken as exactly 1 at top of atmosphere. Don’t confuse surface or atmospheric emissivity with the figure used to computer radiative equilibrium temperature.
Zebra’s reply was good. I’ll step up to the plate next:
All natural science begins with observation of a natural phenomenon, followed by “simplification”, i.e. abstraction, onto a methodological framework for further investigation. That’s because scientists, like all humans, have finite capacity to apprehend an infinitely complex nature.
Climate science is about as complex as natural science gets. Clearly, it’s limited by incomplete observation and methodological simplification. Modeling results will always be approximate, and provisional upon further observation and greater model sophistication. And it’s often pointed out that a complete model of Earth’s climate would have infinite spatial and temporal resolution, run in real time, and leave you wet and windblown!
OTOH science is also cross-cultural, self-correcting, cumulative over centuries, and growing in methodological sophistication at the margins of the known. It never produces perfect knowledge, but it’s the only cultural adaptation humans have evolved for predicting the future that’s more successful than divination with a sheep’s liver. Its observation and modeling of climate phenomena are good enough to identify human economic choices in aggregate as the sole cause of the rising trend of climate-related costs around the world. Economics, a methodological framework for investigating human behavior within markets, has observed that the “free” (a necessary simplification) market socializes every transaction cost it can get away with, leaving those costs to be paid for by involuntary third parties, often far out of proportion to their own market participation. Economics further informs us that the current trend of global heat content can only be capped by collective intervention in the otherwise-“free” global energy market. IOW, scientific understanding is more than sufficient to persuade anyone who’s paying attention, that collective action is necessary to avert the worst possible ending to the tragedy of the climate commons, now underway at mounting cost in money and grief. The only alternative we can anticipate is much greater downstream mayhem!
Collective action, of course, occurs in the realm of politics. Another set of complex phenomena, overlapping substantially with economics, but with its own methodological framework. Speaking as a nominally sovereign US voter, it’s hard enough to grasp the natural science of climate change. We all know, however, that with fossil fuel profits reaching $4 trillion in 2022, some political actors are highly motivated to distort the findings of climate science. IMHO we should all heed the warning by climate modelers Palmer and Stevens, writing in PNAS:
Lacking individual influence, I for one wish I knew how to muster a majority of US voters, enough to thwart those influential people so our country can decarbonize in the shortest economically practical time. I at least don’t wish to abet them, by fooling myself that I know better than the consensus of the international peer community of climate specialists, here ably represented by Dr. Schmidt.
Me: We all know, however, that with fossil fuel profits reaching $4 trillion in 2022, some political actors are highly motivated to distort the findings of climate science.
Since this is RC, I should have cited that $4 trillion number. I trust my HTML fu is sufficient?
Mal Adapted says
10 Mar 2024 at 12:54 PM
RE the IEA head comments on oil/gas demand – as demand is going to fall in the longer term” and ” because oil demand will go down”
Do have any idea on what data/research he might be relying upon to draw such conclusions. I ask because I have seen no credible evidence based forecasts showing Oil/Gas (liquid fuels) demand to fall in the coming two decades at least. (beyond that is an untenable forecast to make)
In fact all indicators are for a steady increase in global oil / gas / liquid fuels demand. If anything there is more likely to be a lack of adequate supply going forward, meaning price increases and even more profits. (see the many Geoff refs)
These issues (and high level comments via Reuters) begs the question who if anyone in the climate science related fields (IEA included) really knows anything about what is actually occurring in the world as we speak.
GHG emissions are not decreasing and there is no sign they will reverse anytime in the near or midterm future. CO2 is now hitting all time highs and record growth rates in February. The world is at record surface temps, Europe is 3.3C above their 1990-2020 Climate Avg for February.
And still people believe this is ALL the result of fossil fuel companies making a profit? That is Gross Denial:101
BTW global profits are usually only $1.5 trillion, but 2022 as we all know was a major spike in back to business as usual with major shortages after the covid downturn. OIL comes with a use by date, cannot be stored for ever, as it deteriorates in quality very fast after a couple of months.
2022 profits — add in Ukraine to the mix and what happened in Europe especially, then globally as a result of Sanctions imposed and the profit gouging that happened.
So that $4 trillion number. is an outlier of epic proportions, and frankly undermines MAs core argument of what is REALLY DRIVING OIL AND GAS DEMAND AND HIGHER PRICES.
Ned, I did not follow up on that remark by Director Birol, but my first, and last, reaction to your comment is that just because you haven’t seen credible evidence, doesn’t mean there isn’t any.
Here, goddammit: https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/how-the-oil-and-gas-industry-spends-its-profits. You do the rest.
I lied about my first reaction being my last, sue me. I was just reminded why I don’t usually read NK’s comments, much less respond to them. It’s because they usually leave me dumber than I was. For the benefit of the hypothetical uncommitted lurker, however:
Way to miss the point, Ned. Whether global oil and gas profits in 2022 were $4 trillion or “only” $1.5 trillion is far less important than that both numbers are in the trillions. “A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money.” The point is the overwhelming political power of wealth beyond all historical dreams of avarice, and the clear motivation to propagate scientific, economic and political disinformation through the body politic. Surely that’s obvious!
That really is my last reaction, before I get any dumber!
Good points. In scientific investigations, phenomena should be investigated using the simplest model that provides a suitably defined accurate approximation to the physical system. If the model is too oversimplified, such as the suggestion of Jean Claude, nonsense will result. On the other hand using an overly complicated model is inefficient and may actually provide less insight. Regarding clouds, my impression that they were not ignored in climate science models. However, if the current model structure adequately models the physical reality I don’t see why that would be required. As to the question of whether clouds cause warming or cooling my common experience is the influence is mitigating, perhaps cooling in the summer and warming in the winter. Or is that just a naiive lay impression?
JD,
Clouds both warm and cool. They exert a global average of 30 watts per square meter of added greenhouse effect, but reflect sunlight and cool the surface (on global average) by 50 W m^-2. This results in a net cooling of about 20 W m^-2. These are rough estimates I remember and may have been superceded by more recent estimates.
Hello Barton Paul, An interesting physical problem. No doubt there are also confounding factors such as local variations in cloud density, seasonal variations and latitudinal changes. Must be hard to obtain a meaningful global average. Always enjoy your posts, by the way. I am not a climate specialist but my original work was in the application of dynamical systems theory and bifurcation theory to turbulent flow, Quite a different field but some parallels with the work you do. I did sit for a single graduate course on geophysical fluid dynamics for what that;s worth, intriguing field.
Jonathan David: – “In scientific investigations, phenomena should be investigated using the simplest model that provides a suitably defined accurate approximation to the physical system. If the model is too oversimplified, such as the suggestion of Jean Claude, nonsense will result. On the other hand using an overly complicated model is inefficient and may actually provide less insight.”
James Hansen tweeted 23 Dec 2023:
https://twitter.com/DrJamesEHansen/status/1605954621134213120
Professor Eliot Jacobson tweeted on Mar 12:
https://twitter.com/EliotJacobson/status/1767305134688837826
[Response: some additional context: https://x.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1767380585348042897?s=20 – gavin]
Jonathan David
Jonathan, it sounds like your background might help me with a question I’ve been trying to sort out here, about systems, chaos theory, and, more specifically, the terminology being used on the climate topic. (I have no background in formal chaos theory.)
When, long long ago, someone asked me my opinion on “global warming”, I had read maybe a couple of newspaper articles. My response was:
1. The weather/climate system seems to be complex and non-linear, so if “they” are correct that we are increasing the energy in the system, it is inevitable that there would be severe disruption.
2. Continuing with my youthful DK hubris, I then said “but really it will be a couple of hundred years before any effects are going to be noticeable”……..heh.
Anyway, currently, my understanding is that while people are quite willing to say “weather is chaotic”, there are doubts about whether the term can be applied to “climate”. I’ve been thinking about this of late and I conclude that I don’t really know what that question might mean, because I don’t know how to separate the weather from the climate from the climate system.
My goal as usual is to simplify things and find consistent language to allow for better communication with “the public”. Any thoughts?
This is a very hard question to answer as stated. To start, the popular conception of the word “chaotic” in the public mind (perhaps “characterized by sudden and unpredictable change”) is quite different from the mathematical definition: “deterministic dynamic phenomena with sensitive dependence on initial conditions.” Weather and climate phenomena occur on a very wide range of length and time scales. No doubt, chaotic as well as stochastic, periodic, quasi-periodic, etc phenomena are present. So what exactly do we mean by the “climate” being “chaotic”? Are we referring to GMST? extent of seasonal variations? All of the above? I would presume that a time series analysis of, say, the GMST might be able to address the question of increasing presence of chaotic behavior although such a result would be rather technical.
On the other hand, a simpler concept, although less food for the imagination than “chaotic” is “instability”. If you are familiar with Dr Edward Lorenz, the father of the “butterfly effect” his original insight of sensitive dependence on initial conditions led him to describe this as “instability” not “chaos”. As the climate becomes warmer one would expect that increased forcing would increase instability of atmospheric phenomena and more “chaotic” behavior. I would think that this original concept of Lorenz with the image of the “butterfly effect” would be an easy way to present this to a lay public.
“with sensitive dependence on initial conditions”
Climate continuously gets reset by the daily cycle and even more so by the seasonal cycle so that initial conditions are not as critical for climate as it is for a weather event.
So a question remains as to whether there are other temporal guiding or boundary conditions that interact with the annual cycle to create other long term cycles — much like tidal forces produce various periods associated with cross-harmonics with the annual cycle (HINT). Tidal cycles themselves are totally immune to initial conditions (HINT, HINT).
Jonathan David,
Much thanks for a carefully considered response.
It sounds like we are on the same page; your final sentence describes my approach almost exactly. (I sometimes get dramatic and say that anthropogenic forcing is like giant butterflies.)
On the more “technical” side, I lean towards the idea that it’s a “both” situation. Again, to simplify, it is like the double pendulum, where the potential for [mathematically correct] chaos exists and is manifested as the energy increases.
So I think that the issue with alarmist v optimist is that we just don’t have the resolution of the physics involved to make predictions short-term. (But I’m sure people will keep arguing about it anyway.)
Zebra:
That assertion is packed for deconstruction. For the double pendulum, you are assuming a chaotic natural response; however, if you force it periodically it may lose it’s chaotic tendencies. The climate is constantly being resynchronized by forcing, a la seasonal cycles, etc. The other aspect to consider is that climate shows much evidence for an inverse energy cascade in the fluid dynamics — as energy increases smaller scale potentially turbulent cycles feed into larger scale waves that will likely show more collective predictability. One can demonstrate this with the fixed standing-wave dipoles & tripoles that span the ocean basins (ENSO in Pacific, IOD in Indian, etc). Only the timing of these are erratic, not the spatial extent, and IMO it is just a matter of time before a predictive pattern emerges.
Basically you are right, clouds are warming over autumn/winter and cooling over spring/summer. The reason is surface radiation (and temperature) is lagging behind solar intensity. But if you average this over the year, the warming momentum is stronger. I only happen to know this, because I extensively analyzed weather records.
The problem I ran into is, that this contradicts climate science, namely exactly the notion Mr. Levenson quotes below. If that was true, clouds would need to be cooling all over. You have empirical data on the one side, theory on the other, and they just don’t get along. What is wrong?
The solution is what I named above. Climate science simply attributed the part of the GHE that is caused by both clouds and GHGs, to GHGs only, completely ignoring the cloud contribution. So yes, the net CRE is smaller than the albedo effect of clouds. But the gross CRE is actually larger and that is a delicate problem. A problem we can not solve.
If A causes X and B also causes X, then X happens. But how do you attribute causation? 50/50? Or do you say if A was not, X would happen anyway, so A was irrelevant? Or the opposite? We have not solved that problem yet. With overdetermined systems we MUST NOT ask what difference one agent makes, because it inevitably leads to wrong conclusions.
Climate science made exactly that fatal mistake and erroneously concluded clouds were cooling.
Last I heard, “climate science” has not “concluded” what the effects of clouds are, and is still working on constraining cloud effects better. But AFAIK, the consensus is that clouds probably exert a warming feedback–i.e., they are warming, not cooling.
@Kevin
I am NOT talking about cloud feedback, which may be a completely seperate story. It is well possible that clouds overall are warming, but an increase in cloudiness is cooling. Let alone the qualitative effects of changing cloud altitudes, changes in the relation between water and ice clouds and so on. I don’t dare to handle this, it is way too complicated.
I only conclude that the clouds we have are rather warming than cooling, for the named reasons.
More than clouds, atmospheric scientists must at some point come to a fundamental understanding of some of the most basic patterns observed. Consider the altitude above the clouds where the QBO of stratospheric winds is observed. From the abstract of a paper to be presented at next month’s EGU:
There really is no consensus model of QBO yet. Might consider that with the Hunga Tonga volcanic eruption where enormous amounts of water vapor were shot up in the stratosphere, one could infer some mechanisms. From this chart
https://acd-ext.gsfc.nasa.gov/Data_services/met/qbo/qbo.html#water
note that the water vapor density increased when the QBO transitioned from easterly to westerly model. That could be just a coincidental timing with the eruption Now the density appears low — where did it all go? Did it disperse? Will it come back when the E-to-W wind transition occurs again? Did it have any impact on the QBO cycle though?.
Indeed, who beliefs in sun’s resposibility for anything in climate can upload a dataset of his own choice (exept SSN etc.) to the KNMI Climate explorer. It can produce a wavelet to find anything with a periode of 11 years. He won’t!
Cette polémique sur les intensités de TSI sont totalement stériles et doctrinaires et il est dommage que Gavin se commette dans de le commentaire de telles donnes mineures
oit observateur et a fortiori, climatologue sait que eme bilan énergétique terrestre « entrant » est de la forme :
W = TSI ( 1 – a ) … avec a = taux d’albédo global, mais dont la composante essentielle est évidemment le renvoi sur la surface blanche des nuages.
La variabilité de a (valeur moyenne :0,3 environ ) … est l’ordre de 0,3% ce qui est faible en apparence mais, appliquée à 360 w/m2 donne
T’as déjà dit tout ça. Jean-Claude.
Si t’es pour jouer aux pions de ce qu’il sied à Gavin de discuter ou non, essaye au moins de traduire ta lamentations dans la langue de Shakespeare.
La bonne attend l’heure,
W
M. Blais,
La densité de flux au sommet de l’atmosphère doit être divisée par 4 car la Terre est une sphère (zone 4 pi R^2) mais intercepte la lumière solaire sur sa section transversale (4 pi R^2). Le TSI est ce qui affecte la température d’une planète.
S’interroger sur les cycles et les UV extrêmes et, de manière générale, chercher un moyen de faire en sorte que ce soit le soleil est un exercice vide de sens. Toutes ces choses ont été examinées. Le soleil n’est PAS à l’origine du réchauffement actuel. Cette idée a été réfutée il y a longtemps. Arrêtez de chercher des failles. Il n’y en a pas.
Excusez-moi, je voulais dire 4 pi R^2 pour la surface sphérique et pi R^2 pour la surface transversale.
McInytyre is not the only Canadian mining guy that Roy and Willie follow.- Jean Claude just poured his millionth ounce of Nunavut gold.
Do the Connelly brothers mesh with Clintel/ CERES Irish allies like Steyn trial video producers Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleer?
What interests me as a psychologist in the postings above is not so much the scientific issues, which I am not sufficiently qualified to judge, as the emotional tone of (some of) the postings. No, let’s be frank here: I refer to the tone of M. Blais’ postings.
Even my schoolboy French can detect that: ‘n’est pas digne du niveau de votre site et est même d’une indigence scientifique déplorable.’ and ‘Cette polémique sur les intensités de TSI sont totalement stériles et doctrinaires…’ are written with a high degree of autonomic arousal. They convey little information about the logic or evidence for or against the climate science, but they convey a great deal of information about the level of anger and frustration experienced by the writer.
I have found in general in my roamings round the portions of the internet where this issue is discussed that the opponents of orthodox climate science follow a similar pattern. Their aim appears to be to raise the emotional temperature: though this may not be intentional. However, it does serve one useful purpose. When the sympathetic nervous system is aroused by some threat, cognitive ability is impaired. To put it crudely, if I start shouting at you and calling you names, your ability to reply with convincing arguments is not at its best. This is why climate science deniers adopt this tactic.
One method of dealing with this type of attack is to point out if a person resorts to verbal abuse, this is a clear sign that they have no better arguments to put forward, and this weakens their case, rather than strengthening it. Or, in M. Blais’ tongue: ‘et ta soeur, c0nnard’.
RA,
True enough from one perspective, however re:
“One method of dealing with this type of attack is to point out if a person resorts to verbal abuse, this is a clear sign that they have no better arguments to put forward, and this weakens their case, ”
It’s not necessarily about a strong or weak case, it’s about disruption, flooding the zone, and generally spreading confusion and demoralizing bystanders. This is programmatic and sociopolitical as much as it is psychological, IMO, and is bound up in issues of a larger movement.
Thanks for your incisive comment, Rory. This blog is known for its focus on the physical science of climate change, and as my early training was in physical and biological science, RC’s authors and expert commenters were able to teach me much about the physical causes and consequences of anthropogenic global warming. I might be in a minority here, but I’m equally interested in the cultural phenomenon of intransigent science denial in public discourse, because of its pernicious role in delaying collective action to cap the otherwise open-ended warming. But knowledge of the motivations for individual and collective human behavior is in the realm of the Behavioral Sciences. I had some training in Environmental Economics as well, but beyond that I’m quickly out on a limb. Economics is nonetheless the source of the evocative Tragedy of the Commons metaphor, which explains common-pool resource tragedies as the aggregate result of individually sound economic choices by economic agents in a marketplace, when those agents are able to socialize – i.e. make involuntary third parties pay for – a portion of their transaction costs.
I, for one, wish to understand the drivers of our tragic behavior as well as the physical results. Of course, individual people are multidimensional, and classical Economics offers only a limited view of motivation. And as I mentioned previously, economics overlaps with politics, yet another yawning rabbit hole. I’m baffled by the distortions of fact and logic we see from denialists like M. Blais (gotta love Google Translate). Thank you for identifying the “high degree of autonomic arousal” in his words, making his emotional investment in contradicting mainstream science transparent. If he is the Jean Claude Blais that Russell seems to think he is, then his economic identity may partially explain his compulsion to rebunk the silly “it’s the sun” meme in public, despite its iterative debunking by the consensus of working climate specialists. For “where your treasure is, there your heart will be also” (St. Luke). It tends to make people connards!
Mal , my presumption arises from the one you link being the one Roy Spencer follows,
Heh. Thank you Russell. Saves me having to ask explicitly!
Rory Allen, thank you! Exactement!
—
Not directly related, but I’ve been ruminating on this:
https://theconversation.com/facts-wont-beat-the-climate-deniers-using-their-tactics-will-24074
The direct point of this quote is that scientists must speak out if they can, rather than sticking to their lane.
The article citing this is much more broad ranging, and I can’t give it proper attention here, but here’s the link: a worthwhile summary, surprisingly optimistic, focused on the Green New Deal:
https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2024/3/3/2226055/-Earth-Matters-No-technological-miracles-needed-to-address-climate-Green-New-Deal-push-relaunches
I know the research addressed above reasonably well. That said, Repetition of a specific true or false meme DOES have an effect. For example, without getting too political, most of the reason for the “shock” on the right–and the left as well–over the SOTU speech was related to the acceptance on all sides of the ridiculously over-repeated meme that JB is on his last mental and physical legs.
Repetition of what the hearer wants to hear is extremely powerful. Simply existing in a pool of the same disinformation day after day is slower but leads to the same basic result over a longer time.
jgnfld says
11 Mar 2024 at 3:41 PM
Repetition of what the hearer wants to hear is extremely powerful. Simply existing in a pool of the same disinformation day after day is slower but leads to the same basic result over a longer time.
Congrats. You’re at least right about that. Now the challenge of extricating yourself from that ocean of disinformation that affects you directly to distort what you believe is “the reality” but isn’t.
I think I’ll accept Nature and Science for my evidence of reality over your reported “science” from Breitfoxmax News.
jgnfld: Please don’t mistake NK’s panic stricken overdrive as in any way captive to ‘breitfoxmax’. Sadly, most people see the world as less complex than it is, and are sometimes too ready to blame the people who should be their allies because of their imperfections, rather than the true deceivers, who are less accessible because they don’t care.
Rory Allen,
So, psychologist Rory, there are people who come here and post multiple comments one after the other, with many of them being long, incoherent rants with lots of bold and caps and links to multiple YouTube and other sources that nobody is going to look at….. What Is Your Diagnosis????
And for the really tough question…. what about the people who keep responding to the same craziness, repeated, over and over and over, for months and years???
True Believer Disorder. (or in DSM terms Delusional Disorder.)
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/292991-overview?form=fpf
Delusions are false beliefs based on incorrect inference about external reality that persist despite the evidence to the contrary; these beliefs are not ordinarily accepted by other members of the person’s culture or subculture. Delusions can be characterized as persecutory (i.e., belief that one is going to be harmed by an individual, organization or group), referential (i.e., belief that gestures, comments, or environmental cues are directed at oneself), grandiose (i.e., belief that the individual has exceptional abilities, wealth, or fame), erotomanic (i.e., a false belief that another individual is in love with him/her), nihilistic (i.e., a conviction that a major catastrophe will occur), or somatic (i.e., beliefs focused on bodily function or sensation). Because cognitive organization and reality testing are otherwise intact in delusional disorder, it has been described in the literature as “partial psychosis.”
Then there’s the common illusory superiority*:
I for one am hesitant to medicalize behavior that’s on a bell curve of normality. Hell, the men in white coats would come for me next!
(*) also called the Lake Wobegon effect, after humorist Garrison Keillor’s fictional Minnesota town “where all the women are strong, all the men are good looking, and all the children are above average”
jgnfld
jgnfld, I don’t know… to me they sound like immature teenagers who have picked on a particular topic with which to establish their identity and status, relative to a society that has so far “not been sufficiently impressed” with their contributions.
But let’s say you are correct. What about the second part of the question?
I’ve been told by people observing my work with struggling students that I was extremely patient. But in this context, where there is no chance of progress, going over and over and over the same stuff is just beyond boring.
I really don’t get the motivation to keep interacting, and as I’ve often said, it is counterproductive in certain forms.
Drugs and psychotherapy.
Dr Allen, I have read that human decision making and the formation of opinions is fundamentally the result of emotional reaction. Our rational, logical games-theoretic minds are simply used to justify our essentially instantaneously formed opinions (based on our so-called gut instinct). This certainly applies to deniers but to those of us who have confidence in the scientific method as well. Fortunately we actually have reality on our side. Nevertheless, if human decision making is primarily the result of low level emotional response it does explain many apparently inexplicable phenomena such as the continued popularity of Donald Trump. I also suspect that advertisers and politicians, for example, base appeals on this idea. What is most interesting to me is why the Scientific Method works so well. What do you think?
Jonathan,
Francis Bacon proposed the scientific method in Novum Organum precisely to counter the illogical thought processes that cloud our judgment. It is not so much that we have “reality” on our side, but rather that the scientific method forces us to see reality clearly, rather than as we want it to be.
Thanks, Ray, an amazing intellectual achievement. I suppose by “reality” what I am referring to is the accumulated base of reproducible and independently verifiable body of scientific knowledge that has accrued over the years. If it could not be demonstrated that we should have confidence in that then scientific progress would not really be possible.
Jonathan, I don’t know what the source is for the idea about low-level emotion, but there’s nothing magical about humans accepting what is experimentally verifiable… we’ve been doing it since the first guy cut his finger on a piece of chipped flint, and then tried it out on the other guy who was competing for his mate.
Humans learn, and do accrue knowledge through language. But they have to be educated from an early age to be open to new ideas and change; the alternative is Authoritarian psychology, which is what defines the anti-science Trump types. Science, on the other hand, by definition coincides with curiosity and progress.
Unfortunately, Authoritarianism is a successful model in terms of controlling scarce resources; Chimps commit genocide and eat their competitors following a strong leader who cannot be questioned. It works.
Technical note: I dissent that the empirically observable universe exhausts reality. If we can pin down a particle’s location exactly, we can never know what its momentum was, yet we know it had a momentum.
You can also posit a supernatural (or subnatural, whatever that means) which is not available to empirical analysis.
I would picture reality as a Venn diagram with the circle A marked “reality” encompassing a smaller circle B marked “nature.” For atheists, the area (A – B) is the empty set, while theists would disagree. But the matter is, by definition, not subject to any possible empirical test.
BPL,
Language, BPL, language.
If we know that we can’t know the momentum of the particle, how is that not “reality”??
This is why you are not good at simple answers… you want to calculate with some numbers instead of beginning at the foundational level.
What’s true is that the conceptual framework we employ is dependent on (and limited by) our available sensory conceptualizations. But the mathematical/quantitative constructs we employ don’t solve that problem.
JD: if human decision making is primarily the result of low level emotional response it does explain many apparently inexplicable phenomena such as the continued popularity of Donald Trump. I also suspect that advertisers and politicians, for example, base appeals on this idea. What is most interesting to me is why the Scientific Method works so well. What do you think?
BPL: Because it takes the personality of the scientists out of the equation, and focuses on the evidence.
@Jonathan David @Rory Allen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldDAfoVdYU8
0:00 / 1:06:46
How Brains Think
George Lakoff
sorry a better version a year later. Lakoff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WuUnMCq-ARQ
On January 9th Willie spent an hour telling Tucker Carlson and his audience of 2 million that besides being second to solar variability in climate forcing fossil fuels aren’t even fossil, because Titan has a hydrocarbon atmosphere, and we haven’t come close to drilling the Earth’s mantle, and it’s too cold to make wine in England, and there’s more uranium in seawater than rocks.
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2024/03/will-willie-soon-become-americas-first.html
The world is being cooked slowly to death because of Willie Soon and fossil fuel companies are mega wealthy climate science deniers and channel their Trillion$ into attacking climate scientists.
The world being cooked slowly to death has nothing to do with the industrial revolution nor Mal Adapted and his peers lifestyles who are consuming fossil fuels in every aspect of their lives like there is no tomorrow.
And there won’t be a tomorrow as long as this delusional insidious denial and minimization of the actual causes continues.
Among the strongest evidence for greenhouse gas increases driving observed warming is that you get the same answer for climate sensitivity no matter what the level of model, from Manabe and Wetherald and before to today’s Earth System Models.
If you think about it a bit, that’s because the greenhouse gas influence is so strong that for all practical purposes, it and it alone dominates the trend (and the oceans determine the long term response).
The most compelling reason to agree with Eli with is the increasing quality and availability of IR imaging cameras.
People can now see with their bare eyes that many things they think are invisible are anything but, if you can extend the limit of your vision from under one micron to over ten.
Show people a methane plume black as any gushing oil well , and see chunks of silicon or germanium their eyebals view as metallic turn as clear as glass, and they have too believe what they see on the IR screen – and believe the data the new IR chemical detection satellites return to Earth.
In Re to Eli Rabett, 13 Mar 2024 at 2:29 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820061
Dear Eli,
I would assign this observation (that various levels of climate models give similar climate sensitivity to changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration) rather as a “hint” that Co2 dominates Earth climate sensitivity and the presently observed warming than as an “evidence”.
I am not sure if available models will give the same climate sensitivity as usually also in case that we substantially change the starting conditions defining other “forcings”. More important, after ca 1 year of a quite fruitless discussion of the respective question on this website, I still have a suspicion that present warming could have been less dramatical if human interference with the evironment was limited to fossil fuel consumption and the respective carbon dioxide release into atmosphere only.
Specifically, I am very curious how would have climate sensitivities to CO2 concentration change looked like in comparison between the extreme “swamp land” and “desert land” Earths modelled in the publication Lague 2023,
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1/pdf ,
that was recently discussed in “unforced variations”.
I guess that the sensitivity of the “swamp land” might be significantly lower than for the “desert land”, however, this is still a mere speculation. If you are aware of a similar study with an opposite result, confirming thus your working hypothesis expressed in your post, please kindly share the respective reference herein.
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
Tomas,
Please! So now you want to redefine science so we have “hints” as well as “evidence”? This is ludicrous and unworthy of serious discussion.
Look, the question of whether land use affects climate sensitivity is one worthy of consideration in peer-reviewed research. However, there is zero evidence that indicates that such effects are confounding sensitivity studies. There are good reasons to be skeptical as to whether such measures can result in significant mitigation of the crisis we face.
What concerns me is your anti-scientific approach, where you downplay any evidence that conflicts with your contention and play up–sometimes to the point of absurdity–anything that seems to support it. This is the opposite of science–it is pure motivated reasoning. Get serious.
In Re to Ray Ladbury, 15 Mar 2024 at 9:08 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820134
Dear Ray,
Honestly, I thought that there is a difference between both words. So far, I understood that a “hint” is something still quite uncertain, what requires further confirmation, whereas the “evidence” is something more solid, what can be already taken as quite reliable and trustworthy.
As regards the article by Lague et al, I understood it just as a hint that the people assuming that water availability for terrestrial evaporation may play a non-negligible role in global climate (you can remember previous discussion about Makarieva et al, https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/ffgc.2023.1150191/full ) may be right. Of course, speculating on the basis of a single article that water availability may have a non-negligible effect not only on average surface temperature at a chosen CO2 concentration but also on climate sensitivity to CO2 concentration change may be too bold.
I am aware that I am not a scientist, nevertheless, I hope that a layman can sometimes also ask a question that makes sense. In my discussion with Piotr, I asked a simple question why he thinks that the difference between dividing by 510 and 127 is “hair splitting”, because I had a feeling that he interprets Lague 2023 oppositely to the conclusion provided by the authors of this article and downplays arguments offered by JCM and patrick o twentyseven.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas,
Then ask better questions! In the scientific method, evidence is quantitative–it can be weak or strong, but it is evidence. What Eli is talking about is in fact strong evidence–when you take a whole bunch of different roads and always wind up in Rome, you have to wonder if maybe the old aphorism might not be true.
And again, speculation, by itself, is not science. If you have a hypothesis, you have to look at the predictions that result–especially those that seem improbable or counter-intuitive. This is in contrast to motivated reasoning, where all you do is look for data that you think supports your narrative. Humans aren’t that smart. Our brains fool us all the time. Science is the lens we need to correct our flawed vision and truly understand the world.
in Re to Ray Ladbury, 16 Mar 2024 at 7:32 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820168
Dear Ray,
I will be very grateful if you help me improving my questions.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš,
You said to Ray: “I will be very grateful if you help me improving my questions.”
Well, if I may interject, you can start by jettisoning the notion that the current state of climate science is immature and somehow comparable to the time of Copernicus. You have gratuitously shrunk your issue with global warming down to a size that you think can be single handedly dismissed, provided you personally can’t be convinced. Dirty pool.
You’re an engineer, if you’re not being disingenuous, you are presumably capable of doing some of your own homework.
Ray, thanks for the shortcut. You read it so we don’t have to! ;)
Tomas Kalisz MAr 15
“ Dear Ray
Honestly I thought ”
“Honesty” is the last characteristic I would associate with you. Then again “thought” does not rank high there either.
TK: ” I asked Piotr a simple question why he thinks that the difference between dividing by 510 and 127 is “hair splitting””
I have never said that the difference between 510 nd 127 is “hair splitting” – so don’t assign to me the products of your inability to understand what you read or worse – the products of you ethics if you misrepresent my arguments on purpose. The fact that you doing it now behind my back – in a post to a third party in the thread I wasn’t participating in, supports the latter explanation.
Given your intellectual/ethical shortcomings – what you “believe” who is right and who is wrong – is irrelevant. Garbage in, garbage out.
And I am not obliged to explain to you my technical arguments – when you are not answering SIMPLE questions to you –
Like then one about your words about “the so-called anthropogenic warming” – a phrase used by deniers to question the existence of the AGW and/or the human cause of it, and, therefore, the need to reduce our use of fossil fuels.
Nor did you offer an honest apology after I caught you on the bold-face lie – you accused me of dishonesty for saying that you proposed to use desert irrigation counter the warming by GHG gases or even COOL the Earth. To which I quoted your May 30 and May 31 post, where you said precisely that.
Here are some general conditions for a meaningful apology, based on Marjorie Ingall and Susan McCarthy:
1. Say you’re sorry. Not that you “regret” how the other person understood it.
2. Say what it is that you’re apologizing for. Be specific.
3. Show you understand why it was bad, take ownership, and show that you understand why it mattered.
4. Don’t make excuses.
5. Say why it won’t happen again. What steps are you taking?
Your apology so far has not meet ANY of these conditions.
==
in Re to Piotr, 18 Mar 2024 at 10:08 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820278
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for the provided teaching. In a related parallel thread, I tried to improve.
In my question why you think that the difference between dividing by 127 and 510 is hair splitting, I tried to condense in one sentence a few questions I repeatedly asked without any response from your side.
See e.g. 10 Mar 2024 at 1:31 PM, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-819926
and
11 Mar 2024 at 4:11 PM, https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-819974
I took the phrase “hair splitting” from one of your numerous posts in that you disregarded arguments by which JCM and patrick o twentyseven defended their understanding of Lague 2023. If I remember correctly, this expression pertained to the realatively small absolute numerical difference between results of your and their calculations of cooling effects.
This difference, however, consisted basically just in the circumstance that although Lague considered a change in water availability for evaporation on land (127 million square km) only, you used the entire Earth surface area (510 million square km) in your calculations of this effect.
Unfortunately, I cannot find the post wherein you used the “hair splitting” phrase anymore. You can know better.
Just as a reminder, I still think that you interpret Lague 2023 not only contrary to JCM and patrick o twentyseven, but also contrary to the conclusions offered by the authors of this article. This is the core of my objections and of my questions I have asked to you.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz Mar 19: “In my question why you think that the difference between dividing by 127 and 510 is hair splitting, I tried to condense in one sentence a few questions”
What for? I wasn’t in this thread thus it wasn’t to ask me a question. The people who were in this thread didn’t know the original discussion. So you took advantage of it by painting me as an IDIOT who doesn’t know the difference between “127 and 510”, and portraying yourself as a voice of calm reason, slightly perplexed why would Piotr made such idiotic claims.
TK: In a related parallel thread, I tried to improve.
By offering a … sarcastic apology? I quoted you the conditions of an honest apology. Sarcasm wasn’t one of them, quite the opposite – it proves the apology pretended.
Until you own up to your actions (see the conditions of an honest apology) – I don’t see the point of wasting my time on technical discussions with somebody, who is not able to admit to others and to himself, his lies and misrepresentations.
In Re to Piotr, 19 Mar 2024 at 5:02 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820349 .
Dear Piotr,
Just to be sure that we speak about the same posts, I tried to clarify the issue (and apologize myself, if I hurt you) on 14 Mar 2024 at 8:58 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820097
and on 19 Mar 2024 at 3:08 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820319 .
I really have not intended any of these two posts as a sarkasm.
As regards the technical question (that you refused to discuss until I improve my character), I would like to say that I just tried to find out if you perhaps might have simply made a mistake (because nobody is totally immune to that).
The questioned formula (using the total Earth surface area instead of the land area), from which you subsequently inferred negligible influence of possible anthropogenic interferences with global water cycle on global climate, appeared several times.
Let me, for the sake of good order, refer to your post of 7 Mar 2024 at 9:05 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-819831 .
In this post, while replying to my question
TK: “if we assume that this warming was 1.5 K, what do you specifically mean by the negligible contribution of the hydrology changes thereto? Less than a few %, that is something like less than 0.1 K? ”
you assured that
“Yes – MUCH LESS than 0.114 K to be specific. But you must already know this , because I have presented the calculations for that in my Mar. 5 post,
i.e. a DAY before the Mar.6 posts to which you “reply” now.
============== Piotr Mar 5. ===============
” GLOBAL ΔT = (12.5K/3)* 14Mkm2/510km2 = 0.114 K, NOT your “0.3K”.
Furthermore – pre-agriculture land wasn’t always 100% saturated with water, nor the currently crop-land for 1/3 year is not ZERO ET either – hence the actual difference between in resulting temperatures is smaller than 12.5K
obtained from T (Max evaporation) – T(Zero evaporation) thus the global effect is LESS than 0.114 K.
Furthermore – without the agriculture there would be little need for irrigation, stopping which would reduce the already the LESS than 0.114K – even FURTHER… ”
=========================================
So before you demand answers from others, Mr. Kalisz, do your damn homework – READ the already available answers in the discussion you are chiming in.”
Herein, I added just the quotation marks at the start and at the end of the citation.
I have never said that your claims are idiotic or anything else like this, and it is not my object making such suggestions. Of course, you do not have any obligation to speak with me if you think I do not deserve it. I just tried to say that other readers (more deserving your attention) might be also happy if they knew that you put the entire Earth surface area into your calculation of the cooling effect by mistake. Or oppositely, I believe that they would have been even more happy if they knew that you had a specific reason which nobody else grasped yet. That’s all.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz: Dear Piotr, Just to be sure that we speak about the same posts
If your _previous_ fake apology in an unrelated thread – then yes we talk about “the same post”, since I have already replied to it:
====
Piotr 20 MAR: “Don’t infantilize the discussion. It’s not about “ hurt personal feelings ” – but about what your phrase “ the so called anthropogenic warming” used by the deniers to question the reality of the global and the human responsibility – tells us about you.
As for your accusations toward me of deliberately manipulating your words, which I have PROVEN (quoting your May3o and May 31 posts) was a boldface LIE. Your half-ass “apology” for that lie – doesn’t come even close to a real apology.”
===
But let’s get back to your current lie, in this thread – you, Tomáš Kalisz tried to discredit me – by “summarizing” my arguments from another discussion as me … somebody who does not see the difference between “127 and 510”:
TK: {Piotr] thinks that the difference between dividing by 510 and 127 is “hair splitting”
What you “forgot” to mention iis that my words were predicated on the divided number being small: if X ~ = 0, then it does not matter whether you divide ~0 by 127 or 510.
You … omitted this crucial fact in your “description” of my argument,
in fact – you implied the opposite – that I applied my words to X THAT are NOT ~=0. Which if it weren’t a lie, would have made me arrogant idiot, and you – a voice of calm reason, perplexed why would Piotr made such idiotic claims.
And true to the form, you tried to sell your lie about me behind my back, to the people who didn’t know the original.
So much for your assurances of your sincerity and good will.
In Re to Piotr, 23 Mar 2024 at 1:14 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820487
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for your clarification.
Just for the sake of good order, I would like to add that the discussion pertained to the question if the calculated values do or do not matter in comparison with global mean temperature increase against the pre-industrial era, which is currently being estimated to about 1.5 K.
It was my understanding that in comparison with this value, a difference between both calculations, giving possible contributions of the considered human interferences with water cycle to the estimated value of global warming about 0.1 K and about 0.3 K, respectively, may be seen as significant.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz Mar 24 “Thank you for your clarification“.
That was no clarification – that was pinning down your dishonest attempts to change the subject and avoid responsibility for your actions. And spare me your fake thankyous – if after them you continue your evasion.
Just for the sake of good order, I would like to add that the discussion pertained to the question if the calculated values do or do not matter in comparison with global mean temperature.”
That’s not “for the sake of good order” but for the sake of covering your ass: none of this is included in your original post, in which you tried to discredit me as an arrogant idiot who does not see the difference between dividing by 510 and 127, I quote:
TK Mar 15: ” I asked Piotr a simple question why he thinks that the difference between dividing by 510 and 127 is “hair splitting” ”
And you have done behind my back, in the thread on another subject, to the people who didn’t follow our original discussion, hence were in no position to detect your manipulations.
And instead of admitting it – you try to cover your ass by diverting discussion to the things you DIDN’T say in your original post or clarifying “for good order” things that need no clarification because irrelevant to your original post.
For more – see
my post from Mar 23
Hello Tomas, There is nothing wrong with posing questions as a layman. However, Piotr has already provided his definitive comments on your questions. There is nothing more to be gained from continuing to pursue these points. Unfortunately, rather than accept his response, you have continued to demand that he provide the answer that you want to hear on the significance of a minor publication of dubious theoretical and negligible practical significance. Since your native language is not English you may not be aware of the term badgering. It is considered very rude to continue to demand a desired response once your points have already been addressed. Please consider (someday anyway) moving on to a different topic.
in Re to Jonathan David, 3 Apr 2024 at 6:34 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820877
and Kevin McKinney, 3 Apr 2024 at 9:37 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820858
Dear Jonathan, dear Kevin,
Thank you both for your kind feedback to my posts.
I think that Lague 2023
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1/pdf
is not a minor article of insignificant importance, for following reasons:
1) It deals with an important topics that, so far, seems to be rather underestimated and partly misunderstood by the broad public interested in climate science and climate policies
2) It gives strong hints that the above mentioned underestimations and misunderstandings are real and severe.
As a support for this opinion, I would like to offer a few hints:
a) One year ago, when I jumped in the discussion about water cycle and its role in global climate regulation herein on Real climate, there still were participants loudly asserting that latent heat flux cannot play ANY role in Earth climate regulation, because it allegedly only transports the heat within the climate system.
This “closed room” assertion is, unfortunately, still quite broadly spread and actively promoted by many climate science educators and teachers, although it is completely false and highly confusing the public.
The truth, however, is that without latent heat flux enabled by global water cycle, mean surface temperature of the “Arrakis-Earth” would have been significantly higher than current one.
b) Although some significant, very active discussion participants in the Real climate fora, like Barton Paul Levenson and Piotr, were already aware of this crucial water cycle role in Earth climate regulation, they fiercely opposed to arguments (presented most consistently by JCM) that not only oceans but also hydrology regime on land, including human interferences therewith, may play an important role.
JCM opponents argued that any latent heat flux increase must be accompanied by a commensurate increase of the atmospheric water vapour concentration, which will overturn any surface cooling effect of the increased latent heat flux, due to increased water vapour greenhouse effect.
c) Lague 2023, however, gives a quite clear hint that also these assertions were completely false.
d) I do not think that the topics of land hydrology is of negligible practical importance, because it is crucial for human well-being.
e) If we change the viewpoint on the water cycle as a mere “feedback” and consider the possibility (in my opinion strongly supported by Lague 2023) that human interference with land hydrology may significantly influence global climate, this paradigm shift might open a new inventory of additional, not yet considered tools for active climate change mitigation.
f) Oppositely, if we will ignore the hints brought by Lague 2023 and further neglect research in the direction showed by this article, I am afraid that climate policies based on the incomplete an partially mislead understanding to water cycle role in climate regulation may finally prove as ineffective or, in worst case, even as counter-productive and harmful.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Apr. 4.
– “I think that Lague 2023 […] deals with an important topics […] gives strong hints”
– ” Lague 2023 gives a quite clear hint that also these assertions were completely false”
– “in my opinion strongly supported by Lague 2023”
– “if we will ignore the hints brought by Lague 2023”
Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord in vain, Tomas.
You cherry-pick disjointed details and miss the relevant conclusions of Lague et al.,
apply it outside of the context they have been made – all that to vindicate your crazy
desert irrigation schemes.
1. Lague shows that most of the heating by the changes in the water cycle are due to their “b> feedback with temperature. The same feedback present in the CERES data, and Schmidt et al. 2010. And which feedback AMPLIFIES the effect GHG driver, thus making climate MORE, and as you imply, less sensitive, to the GHG changes.
2. By establishing MAXIMUM effect of changing evapo-transpiration (ET) between all continents being 100% desert and all continents being 100% swamp: ΔGMST ~ 7- 8 K, Lague demonstrated the FUTILITY of the attempts to change the water cycle from a feedback into a driver of climate change by humans, since the volume of ET that can be altered by direct human intervention is MINISCULE compared to the volume of natural ET fluxes, and therefore would result in the MINISCULE fraction of 7-8 K MAXIMUM theoretically possible efect.
This has been further shown by patrick, who used Lagues results, to show that even if we abandoned all crops on Earth – the cooling from the resulting increase in ET would be
tiny ( a fraction of a fraction of 0.3K .
Tomas reads this and presents as a …vindication of his insane desert irri9ations ideas (pumping of many millions of of cubic km of seawater over 100s and 1000s of kms – and spreading it uniformly over many mln km2 of deserts).
But what a denialist would NOT do to prolong the use of fossil fuels… ;-)
in Re to Piotr, 5 APR 2024 AT 2:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821002
Dear Piotr,
Thank you for your feedback.
I am grateful for your clarification that you now understand one of the basic messages of Lague 2023 (that water availability for evaporation from the land may significantly change global Earth surface temperature) the same way as other readers of the Real Climate forum, especially JCM and patrick o twentyseven.
A remark regarding the option for artificial EEI management by switching e.g. 4 % (about 5 000 000 square km) of Earth surface from the “desert land” to “swamp land” regime, Assuming similar evaporation ratelike from the Red Sea (about 2m water column), the necessary water amount enabling that evaporation rate would have been about 10 000 cubic km, not millions.
Greetings
Tomáš
In Re to Eli Rabett, 13 Mar 2024 at 2:29 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820061
Dear Eli,
In my reply of 15 Mar 2024 at 8:00 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820132 ,
I tried to ask if cirmcumstance that climate models of various level give the same climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot have also different explanation than that you have offered.
You consider this circumstance as the strongest evidence that the rising atmosperic CO2 concentration is the prevailing cause of the observed global warming. I asked if another explanation for various models providing the same climate sensitivity towards CO2 can perhaps result from the way how all these models are being built and run? I can imagine that the models may differ from each other in other aspects but may be very similar e.g. in that they focus on modelling the “real” Earth.
Are you sure that the Earth with different setup (including e.g. atmospheric aerosol pollution, heat transport by ocean currents, hydrological regime on the land, etc.) will still exhibit the same climate sensitivity towards CO2 concentration changes that you mentioned in your post? If so, could you cite some studies supporting this knowledge?
I have not obtained any answer to my original question yet, only a recommendation that I have to try asking better questions. This is my second attempt.
Thank you in advance for your comments and best regards
Tomáš
TK: Are you sure that the Earth with different setup (including e.g. atmospheric aerosol pollution, heat transport by ocean currents, hydrological regime on the land, etc.) will still exhibit the same climate sensitivity towards CO2 concentration changes that you mentioned in your post?
BPL: Yes, because the climate sensitivity to CO2 doesn’t depend on other factors. You’re confusing a cause with an effect.
In Re to Barton Paul Levenson, 1 Apr 2024 at 8:33 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820791
Dear Barton Paul,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
If we understand under “climate sensitivity” the pace of the warming caused by certain change in atmospheric CO2 concentration, then I would expect that is should depend e.g. on the intensity of ocean mixing, which likely might slow down or speed up if the course and and/or speed of ocean currents may change, too.
If we understand under “climate sensitivity” the difference between the global mean surface temperature of the original steady state and of the new one, then I would expect that it might still depend at least on water availability for evaporation on the land.
Can you explain why my assumptions were incorrect?
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
No doubt Barton will have something sensible to say on this, but if we’re talking about *equilibrium* climate sensitivity, I’d suggest that we’d expect ocean mixing to affect the time to reach equilibrium, but not the equilibrium value itself.
I’m dubious that water availability on land will have any very marked effect on global temperature, at least in any quasi-realistic virtual world, but even if it did, why should that affect climate sensitivity? That is, if you compare the effect of doubling CO2 in our world to, say, the effect of doubling it in a virtual Arrakis (where, in case you missed the reference, both water availability and evaporation are very, very low), why would you expect the delta to differ markedly between cases? Sure, you expect Arrakis to be hotter than Earth–but why would you expect an identical radiative forcing to give a different result on each planet?)
Tomas Kalisz: “Can you explain why my assumptions were incorrect?”
who cares about your assumptions, where the problem is in your goal. The denier’s goal is to defend the continued use of fossil fuels. This can be achieved in 3 ways:
1. denying or minimizing the existence climate change
2. denying or minimizing the role of GHGs in it
3. denying or minimizing the need for humans to reduce GHGs
Your previous work was to claim that GHG reductions often “cause more harm than good” (p.3) and therefore you proposed massive increase in evaporation and calculated how big it should be to cancel the entire GHG forcing, or even move the climate into cooling phase – i.e. p.2 and p.3.
Now you branched into the ocean – combing pp. 2 and 3 with p. 1:
if changes in ocean mixing or ocean currents are significant – then
this would make our predictions less certain (p.1) => uncertainty is our friend => science is not settled => so let’s not rock the boat on uncertain predictions => let’s keep burning FF as usual (p 3. )
But uncertainty is not bloody likely your friend: warmer air means more ocean stratification -> less mixing -> lower ability to take up atm heat. Also warmer and CO2-rich water can take less atm Co2 into the surface waters, and with increased vertical mixing less likely to put away human Co2 into the deep ocean.
So ocean is not a forcing but a positive feedback, i.e. one that AMPLIFIES the effects of human GHG emissions, making their reduction more, not less, important (here goes your p.3).
In Re to Kevin McKinney, 3 Apr 2024 at 9:37 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820858
Dear Kevin,
Many thanks for your for your questions.
I already tried to adress them in my post of 4 Apr 2024 at 4:48 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820898 ,
and in my replies to Piotr, published on 5 Apr 2024 at 5:00 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820963 ,
and on 9 Apr 2024 at 4:31 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821123 .
In a nutshell, I think that “climate parameters” like concentration and furher characteristics of various aerosols, water availability for evaporation from land or surface albedo can be hardly characterized as mere “feedbacks” that can be unequivocally derived from the combined “forcings” of various non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) comprised in Earth atmosphere.
For this reason, if climate sensitivity towards the combined forcing of the non-condensing GHGs comprises also “feedbacks” like cloud or ice albedo, it should definitely differ in various models that treat these “feedbacks” differently.
Of course, if Eli spoke about climate sensitivity towards a “neat” effect of combined GHGs, consisting merely in their absorption of the upwelling longwave radiation from and its back-radiation towards Earth surface, then I can imagine that it may be well possible that all models give very similar values therefor.
In such case, however, I do not think that the narrow range of such “neat” climate sensitivities provided by various models for combined GHG effect could be construed as an evidence for prevailing importance of the combined GHGs forcing in the observed global warming.
Piotr, 4 Apr 2024 at 8:17 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820937
and 5 Apr 2024 at 2:12 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821002,
believes that
“.. GHGs warm( ) air, which causes in crease in abs. humidity (AH), but a decrease in avg. relative humidity (RH). Increase in AH increases absorption of LW, decrease in RH reduces the cloudiness, reducing reflection of SW into space. So the water cycle (AH and clouds) are not a driver, but a feedback that merely amplifies the warming by GHGs.”
and that (if I understood him correctly) this feedback must make Earth climate more, and not less (as I imply) sensitive to the GHG changes.
I am afraid, however, that these conclusions may be incorrect. To me, it appears that they are based on an improper generalization of the Schmidt 2010 article which concluded that water vapour feedback enhances the GHG effect.
Personally, I am not sure that this conclusion can be directly generalized the way that an improved water availability for evaporation must result in a further enhancement of this feedback. If Lague et al are correct and an improvement in water availability for evaporation results in a decrease of average Earth surface temperature (and, in parallel, of the average absolute air humidity), I can imagine that the same CO2 concentration increase can in fact result in a smaller mean global temperature increase for the “swamp land” than for the “desert land”.
In other words, I would rather desist from bold assertions regarding the results of the proposed modelling experiment, and, instead, rather asked if someone could be willing to carry out such an experiment.
Best regards
Tomáš
re: “””Sure, you expect Arrakis to be hotter than Earth”””
Why should we expect Arrakis (whatever that is – a desert planet?) to be hotter, in spite of the alleged identical sensitivity to trace gas concentration?
Assuming the same total solar irradiance and identical trace gas absorption properties, what is making Arrakis hotter?
It is not immediately obvious to me how to make this leap while arguing for the same climate sensitivity.
thanks
In Re to JCM, 10 Apr 2024 at 11:06 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821193
Dear JCM,
Thank you very much for your question.
You managed to condense all my doubts regarding the strong conclusion drawn by Eli Rabett in his original post (attached below for reader’s convenience) in one simple sentence.
I still think that these doubts are reasonable and that all the arguments provided so far by other discussion participants in favour of Eli’s assertion were not convincing.
Greetings
Tomáš
—
Eli Rabett says
13 Mar 2024 at 2:29 PM
Among the strongest evidence for greenhouse gas increases driving observed warming is that you get the same answer for climate sensitivity no matter what the level of model, from Manabe and Wetherald and before to today’s Earth System Models.
If you think about it a bit, that’s because the greenhouse gas influence is so strong that for all practical purposes, it and it alone dominates the trend (and the oceans determine the long term response).
To Tomas,
in response to the assertion “greenhouse gas influence is so strong that for all practical purposes, it and it alone dominates the trend”…
it is not my intent to doubt this, certainly Manabe and co along with assumptions of fixed hydrological sensitivity in a 1D column simulation demonstrated this concisely.
Modern ESMs in the CMIP6 suite yield a raw ECS style sensitivity in the range of 1.8 to 5.6C. Recently, climate communicators have been using the analogy of “ice-age” climate shifts. Such as, from the previous glaciation to today’s interglacial the temperature change has been (only) 4 or 5C, or so. This is to illustrate that seemingly small temperature differences result in a totally different Earth system.
It is noteworthy that the range of raw ECS across the CMIP6 suite represents an almost complete “ice-age” step. That is, the virtual Earths, as illustrated across forced ESMs, are effectively as varied as the last glaciation to today. For the same trace gas concentrations, the ESMs project futures that bear little resemblance to one another.
Previously I have asserted that direct hydrological disturbance by humanity can yield fractions of a degree change in global average, with much more pronounced changes locally. It’s puzzling that this notion faces resistance, considering this potentially significant effect, as conservatively proposed, is an order of magnitude smaller than the raw ECS envelope in the current gen CMIP simulations.
Undoubtedly, if one were to survey the impacts on local ecosystems, such as bird and fish populations, or observe changes in water-well logs and temperature monitoring stations, or analyze the modified drought and flood risks following the disappearance of a wetland, it would become apparent that the absence of the wetland is paramount in the disturbance.
To outright refuse this, out of what I perceive to be a highly reduced view of human influence, reflects a distorted and simplistic view of reality. A phony-environmentalism that transcends educational curricula and decision-making today. I would like to believe that Manabe and his predecessors never intended for their research to be misconstrued in a way that undermines the complexity of Earth’s systems. It’s not too late for us to recognize that each of us are stakeholders and allies in Earth system stabilization, and there is no denial or ulterior motives involved in that.
In belated response to JCM’s question, or questions, yes, Arrakis is a (fictional) desert planet, locus of Frank Herbert’s Dune series and now of a couple of blockbuster movies; and I would mostly expect Arrakis to be hotter because that’s how it is described by Herbert! I was positing that a priori for the purposes of a bit of a thought experiment, and so didn’t regard it as needing positive justification.
However, that said, Arrakis could be hotter than Earth because its albedo might be lower–its atmosphere is basically cloudless. (Though on the other hand, one must wonder whether the surface albedo of the Arrakan sands is really lower than that of seawater, of which Arrakis is completely bereft. Strangely, Herbert never, to my knowledge, supplied a value for this quantity.) It might also have a higher baseline level of CO2, or other GHGs. Heck, for all I know, the fabled ‘spice’, which makes it the most important planet in the galaxy, is an ultra-powerful IR forcing in itself, rather like some of those refrigerant gases with the alphabetic names. You’d expect lots of residue in the sands, and between sandstorms and sandworms, I’d think a lot of it would be aloft at any given time, either whole as an aerosol, or possibly as gaseous breakdown products, which could perhaps act as actual GHGs.
(Side question, regarding Arrakan planetary history: what does the temperature dependency curve of a planet’s water loss to space over geological time look like? And what other factors are determinative? “Bueller?”–if yet another cinematic reference may be forgiven.)
I also note that equal CO2 sensitivity was not posited in my comment; rather, I asked why it should not be expected–a question whose answer I have missed, if it has been given.
To Kevin, in response to: “I asked why it should not be expected” in terms of “equal CO2 sensitivity”.
In celebrating Manabe and Wetherald’s 1967 foundational and now-ubiquitous forcing–feedback framework under a fixed hydrological sensitivity, it seems to me the answer is self evident. A key feature in the influence and longevity of the work is that they chose not to complicate the issue with inconvenient complexities. They had the good sense to make no attempt at modeling changes in the water vapor or cloud distributions, which reside on the feedback side of things.
Today, the strongly coupled surface–troposphere perspective serves as a basis for the ubiquitous forcing–feedback decomposition underlying much of the current understanding of sensitivity. However, I caution that in turning the focus away from the surface and toward the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), MW67 might have resulted in certain setbacks in research and teaching. I notice today significant knowledge gaps on issues surrounding the surface, particularly the mechanisms of heat and mass transport, hydrological sensitivity, and the associated limits which translate to atmosphere such as cloud condensation aloft.
I like to believe this was an unintended consequence of Manabe’s work. The hyper focus on radiative transfer while assuming fixed feedbacks is useful, but also misleading. In my current understanding, if Arrakis is free from seas and surface moisture altogether, it is inconceivable it would have a comparable CO2 sensitivity to Earth. This is implicit in Manabe’s work.
Previously Tomas and I were discussing different Earth system configurations introduced by Lague. In her examples, the “Northland” desert configuration (free from large waterbodies/ocean) resulted in cooler temperatures, owing to the missing water vapor feedback. The hottest configuration was desert continents interspersed by oceans – this limited cloud while allowing for strong (temperature controlled) water vapor feedbacks. A moderate temperature configuration was swamp continents interspersed with seas, which had an ‘optimal’ net cloud radiative cooling, along with moderate water vapor feedback. These configurations were demonstrated using the CESM and her SLIM (simple land interface model). Lague makes a great effort to remind that, in spite of Manabe’s overwhelming TOA perspective, the surface properties (state and change) impose significant influence on sensitivity.
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/bams/103/11/BAMS-D-21-0351.1.xml
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/acdbe1
JCM says
13 Apr 2024 at 10:45 AM
Tomáš Kalisz says
12 Apr 2024 at 10:21 AM
Would it be too offensive to suggest that ECS and ESMs are only indicative and are not factual truths? They are but simple / potentially useful mathematical tools best not confused with reality.
Both have changed substantially since the first ones were created/assumed and calculated. They are not fixed in stone. It’s like confusing the moon as being a source of light – when it is only a reflection.
Or as Bruce Lee shared — ‘It’s like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don’t concentrate on the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory.’
Kevin: ””Sure, you expect Arrakis to be hotter than Earth”
JCM: ” Arrakis – whatever that is – a desert planet?”
Why …. I am not surprised that this reference went over JCM’s head … Nobody ever expects the Shai-Hulud … ;-)
in Re to JCM, 13 Apr 2024 at 10:45 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821279,
and 14 Apr 2024 at 10:31 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821304.
Dear JCM,
many thanks for your posts. They are on a quite high level for me (I have never studied Manabe’s works, and are not going to do so), so I am uncertain if I understood your message correctly.
Is it so that through the “fixed relative humidity” (which is indicated as a crucial feature of Manabe’s model in the celebrating article by Jeevanjee, Held and Ramaswamy), Manabe’s model basically assumes certain fixed level of water availability for evaporation from the surface?
And, if so, do I understand correctly that changing this fixed level should result in a different value of the fixed relative humidity and also in a different climate sensitivity towards CO2 concentration changes even in the relatively simple Manabe*s 1D model?
Thank you in advance for an additional explanation in this regard.
Greetings
Tomáš
That’s part of the reason that LLMs such as ChatGPT are so useful in these situations. Anyone can just add the comment as a prompt context into ChatGPT4 and the response will in all likelihood explain the analogy of Arrakis as a desert planet. Whereas with just Google search, the connection would come up empty since scholarly journal articles wouldn’t ordinarily use such a pop-culture reference — i.e. the “CO2 sensitivity” AND “Arrakis” would come up empty (or at best, this page).
JCM Apr. 14 ” Previously Tomas and I were discussing different Earth system configurations introduced by Lague.”
I wouldn’t read too much into that “discussion”:
– Tomas, as usually, understood nothing
– you dismissed the value of Lague model, and by extension, all climate models as:
“ imaginary process mechanisms” which use arbitrary “ rules about how things ought to be”, and as such offer no insight into the real world.
See: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/unforced-variations-march-2024/#comment-820584
-Kevin: ””Sure, you expect Arrakis to be hotter than Earth”
-JCM: ” Arrakis – whatever that is – a desert planet?”
-Piotr: “Why …. I am not surprised that this reference went over JCM’s head … Nobody ever expects the Shai-Hulud … ;-)”
– Paul Pukite: ” That’s part of the reason that LLMs such as ChatGPT are so useful in these situations. Anyone can just add the comment as a prompt context into ChatGPT4 and the response will in all likelihood explain the analogy of Arrakis as a desert planet. ”
or type “Arrakis” in Google search and voila – the first hit:
: “Arrakis (/əˈrɑːkɪs/)[1]—informally known as Dune and later called Rakis—is a fictional desert planet featured in the Dune series of novels by Frank Herbert.”
Chat GPT won’t make JCM recognize cultural references and ideas, nor teach you – humour and irony…
A friend of mine said about somebody with whom she didn’t have much in common, “we have read different books”. Thus inserting a Herbert’s “Dune” reference by Kevin into a “serious” discussion makes me feel much more in common with him than with JCM who has never hear about it. Nor do I feel connection with people who lack a sense of humor and irony. like you. For me, the sense of humour, is a necessary part of Human Intelligence. Sure, machine can be tell you what makes people laugh. But would it laugh itself, would it enjoy a joke?
JCM: They had the good sense to make no attempt at modeling changes in the water vapor or cloud distributions, which reside on the feedback side of things.
BPL: Manabe and Wetherald 1967 held relative humidity constant in their RCM. Thus water vapor feedback happened automatically. This was a change from the Manabe and Strickler 1964 paper, which assumed fixed absolute humidity.
To BPL
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821324:
yes, thank you. The relative humidity distribution and cloud is prescribed in MW67, with a fixed gain. This is taking a huge bite out of the Planck response at TOA, from a quartic change in OLR per K Ts to a linear change. This creates about a factor 2 amplification.
Lague offers a view of RH, using the CESM, with an extreme case land surface alteration. This is to complement the MW67 foundational spectral forcing-feedback concept.
https://content.cld.iop.org/journals/1748-9326/18/7/074021/revision2/erlacdbe1f5_hr.jpg
To Tomas
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821320:
I am interested in the delta lambda (changing climate response parameter) caused by profound and extensive continental desiccation.
That is, not only the variable climate response with the temperature itself (say from glacial state to interglacial states and beyond see: https://eisenman.ucsd.edu/papers/Eisenman-Armour-submitted-2024.pdf), but…. additionally a change in apparent sensitivity caused by a human direct perturbation (landscape disturbance).
Conceivably, this increases the apparent equilibrium climate sensitivity beyond that of Manabe and Wetherald’s foundational CO2 forcing-feedback paradigm, i.e. greater than their 2 or 3K radiative-convective ECS.
The lambda is usually expressed as temperature controlled kernels of Planck feedback, lapse rate feedback, water vapor feedback, albedo feedback (surface ice/snow), and cloud feedbacks. I am suggesting non-temperature controlled disruptions to water vapor + cloud radiative effects (CRE) by direct human alteration to the system.
Lague demonstrates how suppressing terrestrial ET impacts the TOA energy budget by: loss of low cloud cover over land, more SW energy absorbed, increase in global temperature, increase in water vapor globally. That is, forced changes to relative humidity and cloud distributions with a net increase in temperature.
Critically, the reduction of low cloud cover associated with the direct ET suppression results in an initial net positive radiative forcing (the TOA SW-IN exceeds the TOA LW-OUT) until a new equilibrium steady state. This is occurring independently of, and in-addition-to, Manabe’s spectral forcing-feedback to trace gas.
Alternatively, this could be described as an apparent forced change to climate sensitivity caused by humanity.
While traditional spectral forcing-feedback paradigms provide a solid foundation, they must be allowed to expand to allow for the full range of system states and perturbation. I reckon Manabe would not dispute that. He introduced the spectral CO2 forcing-feedback effect, not the full gamut of climate influences.
JCM – He introduced the spectral CO2 forcing-feedback effect, not the full gamut of climate influences.
aka the OCD Effect? :)
Tomas, let me help out with some background on the models in question.
I suppose that it’s in some sense true that ‘climate’ models have tried to model the “real” earth, at least for the most part. (Some have tried to model other planets!) Yet the level of detail at which they try to do so has changed fundamentally over more than five decades now. Early models (Syukuro Manabe’s seminal ones, for example) were “one dimensional”–that is, they modeled only vertical radiative transfer in the atmosphere. No atmospheric circulation; no surface topography; no transpiration or evaporation. No cryosphere. Not even aerosols at first, IIRC, though those came in pretty quickly. Clearly, these were highly abstract models we are considering in the first generation!
*
For more on the evolution of computer climate modeling, I’d recommend the book “A Vast Machine”, available for instance here:
https://www.amazon.com/Vast-Machine-Computer-Politics-Infrastructures/dp/0262518635
But consider: given that the broad-strokes results on the effect of CO2 didn’t change drastically from 1D models to whole-atmosphere models; didn’t change drastically when they added a “swamp ocean” and idealized surface; didn’t change drastically when they incorporated real topography; didn’t change drastically when they incorporated ocean circulation; didn’t change drastically when they added a cryosphere; didn’t change drastically when they incorporated biological activity and carbon cycles; didn’t change drastically with improved parameterizations and in some cases actual process simulation; didn’t change drastically with dramatically better model
resolution–given all that (and probably more I’m not remembering in the moment), why would you expect that somewhat different surface characteristics should make a drastic difference either?
The “reality” of the worlds simulated has already, over time, drastically exceeded the potential differences that you’re contemplating. And it hasn’t affected the broad-strokes result.
*First gen *computer* models, that is. Arrhenius’s hand-calculated 1896 global model was at least 2-D. (Help me out here, folks–does it qualify as fully 3-D? I don’t recall how he handled spatial considerations exactly, though he definitely did report results for the various latitudinal bands.)
In Re to Kevin McKinney, 2 Apr 2024 at 12:32 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820818
Dear Kevin,
Many thanks for your explanation that sounds convincingly.
Nevertheless, I still feel a discrepancy that I am not able to explain yet.
Let us assume that Eli is right and the narrow range of the values of climate sensitivity towards CO2 concentration changes, as derived from very different models (starting with models that perhaps do not consider any Earth surface characteristics at all, and ending with models describing in quite detail not only Earth surface but also various feedback mechanisms like ice, albedo, clouds, oceanic currents), indeed provide the assumed strong evidence that CO2 concentration changes are basically the sole driver of the observed cllimate change / of the observed Earth warming.
How can we then explain the imperfect correlation between the observed warming and the rising CO2 concentration, which is on this forum stubbornly objected by Victor as an evidence against the importance of the greenhouse effect, and is equally stubbornly rebutted by others using the simple argument that CO2 is NOT the sole climate driver? Isnť there a conflict with “alarmists”, like James Hansen, who emphasize the importance of the assumed decrease in anthropogenic aerosol pollution as the alleged driver of the supposed warming acceleration?
There were also discussed some data from CERES satellites on this forum, that allegedly also give a hint that at least the warming in the last decade is to be ascribed rather to increasing shortwave radiation absorption by Earth than to rising greenhouse effect, although atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases was constantly rising during this period. Isn’t it also a discrepancy with the assertion posted by Eli?
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas: “ [if] CO2 concentration changes are basically the sole driver of the observed climate change, [then] how can we then explain the imperfect correlation between the observed warming and the rising CO2 concentration, which is stubbornly objected by Victor?
Don’t bring a … spoon to a gunfight^* (*Victor’s statistics to the climate discussions )
1. NOBODY is saying that “CO2 concentration changes are basically the sole driver of the observed climate change” – CH4, N2O, Halocarbons, and tropospheric ozone – have COMPARABLE contribution to AGW as CO2.
Hence CO2 is NOT “basically the sole driver” EVEN among other GHGs, MUCH LESS among ALL factors that may affect global T at some time scale.
2. The contribution of the non-CO2 GHGs changes over time at DIFFERENT rates than that of CO2, Say, if a drop in CH4, caused a T drop, even though CO2 continued to rise. your Victor would interpret: See? T has decreased while CO2 increased => Co2 does not affect T => we can burn as much fossil fuels as we please.
3. Forces dominating WEATHER are not the same that dominate the CLIMATE. ENSO or other oscillations around the mean, can affect global T over the scale of months and a few years, but they are averaged out once you do the climatological (3-decades or more) moving averages.
4. Warming effect of Co2 is approximately logarithmic, so why would one even expect a linear increase of T with CO2?
5. Deniers don’t have much knowledge of the physics of climate – so they ignore physics in favour on whatever fragmentary statistical knowledge from other fields they may have, EVEN when the necessary conditions for a correlation do not transfer to climate. Then again – Victor may not be even aware about these conditions (like normal distribution of data and errors)
exist -for Victor “correlation ” is just … a subjective word – Victor … LOOKS at a graph of two variables and DECLARES that he sees, or does not see, a correlation.
Then Tomas gives Victor the same credibility as his opponents, by using the
the SAME language (“equally stubborn”) to describe BOTH.
6. Deniers often don’t understand the difference between “driver”/”forcing”, and “feedback”. See Tomas misrepresenting the CERES data:
TK” the warming in the last decade is to be ascribed rather to increasing shortwave radiation absorption by Earth than to rising [Co2] effect
The reason for the “increasing SW absorption” is the decline in cloud albedo. But the clouds didn’t decrease on their own as would be the case if they were a driver of GW, they decreased due to … increasing T by GHGs:
GHGs warmed air, which causes in crease in abs. humidity (AH), but a decrease in avg. relative humidity (RH). Increase in AH increases absorption of LW, decrease in RH reduces the cloudiness, reducing reflection of SW into space. So the water cycle (AH and clouds) are not a driver, but a feedback that merely amplifies the warming by GHGs.
To sum up – it is the increase in GHGs that warmed the Earth: some of it directly (via GHG’s LW absorption), most of it indirectly (via increasing LW absorption due to AH, and by reducing cloudiness). No warming by GHGs – no “increasing shortwave radiation absorption [ by clouds] “. Therefore global T is MORE sensitive to increases in GHGs than the direct effect of GHGs absorption alone.
Which is a conclusion OPPOSITE to the attempts by Tomas to downplay the importance of the GHGs, and therefore the urgency to reduce them.
Only a stupid liar lies about everything. A skilled liar misrepresents the truth – here by portraying credible sources (CERES, before that – Lague et al. 2023, and BPL calculations) as supporting his claims.
In Re to Piotr, 4 Apr 2024 at 8:17 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820937
Dear Piotr,
On March 13, 2024, at 2:29 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820061
Eli Rabett wrote
“Among the strongest evidence for greenhouse gas increases driving observed warming is that you get the same answer for climate sensitivity no matter what the level of model, from Manabe and Wetherald and before to today’s Earth System Models.
If you think about it a bit, that’s because the greenhouse gas influence is so strong that for all practical purposes, it and it alone dominates the trend (and the oceans determine the long term response).”
In my reply of 15 Mar 2024 at 8:00 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820132 ,
I tried to ask if the circumstance that climate models of various level give the same climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot have also different explanation than “that’s because the greenhouse gas influence is so strong that for all practical purposes, it and it alone dominates the trend (and the oceans determine the long term response)”.
In the light of your kind comment, it is now my understanding that Eli’s assumption about the same climate sensitivity (allegedly) resulting from different models as “the strongest evidence for greenhouse gas increases driving observed warming” is indeed incorrect.
I think so because if I understood you correctly,
a) either the climate sensitivity towards a change in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (which, as you remarked, is actually no constant but should be referenced to an exact concentration change, such as e.g. “from 280 ppm to 560 ppm”, because the dependence is not linear but logarithmic) considers various feedbacks (such as decreasing cloud cover),
b) or it is a “neat” sensitivity to the greenhouse effect of the respective greenhouse gas (e.g. CO2) only, “cleaned up” from all possible feedbacks.
If so, then I understand that in case a) the “complex” climate sensitivities including also various “feedbacks” should differ for different model levels, depending on the extent in which these feedbacks were implemented in the models during their historical development,
In case b), all models (irrespective of their different maturity level, provided that the “neat” greenhouse CO2 effect is treated in all models basically the same way from the very start) should provide the same climate sensitivity towards a reference CO2 concentration change. It should be so, because if defined this way, the climate sensitivity indeed does not depend on the treatment of further climate features in which the models differ from each other.
In this case, however, I am afraid that the narrow range of such “neat” climate sensitivity to the direct greenhouse effect (without *feedbacks” or other “forcings” that depend on the real Earth “setup”) in fact does not provide any information with respect to the question how important is direct CO2 greenhouse effect in comparison with its “feedbacks” and/or with other “forcings”. That is why I perceived the above cited Eli’s assertion as somewhat suspicious.
Am I correct now, or still mislead?
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz Apr. 5 “ Am I correct now, or still mislead?
I am for the third possibility “ I still don’t understand squat”
TK: Eli Rabett wrote: “the greenhouse gas influence is so strong that for all practical purposes, it and it alone dominates the trend”
and then you …. misrepresented this by changing “GHGs” to “Co2”. Which completely
changes this discussion – see my point 1 and 2.
– You also conflated weather with climate, by conrasting Rabett words about climate “trend” (timescale of 30 yrs or more) with …. what other said about …. short -term (i.e. non-climate) oscillations. Why this is a problem – see my p.3.
– Victor and you don’t know squat about statistics – “ correlation” its not a word expressing subjective feelings , but has specific statistical meaning. And it has that have to be met – and they didn’t
– see my p. 4 and 5. And you you both ignore the confounding variables. Hence my subtitle:
“ Don’t bring a … spoon to a gunfight^* (*spoon, because Victor’s statistics is not even a knife, compared to the statistical guns of Gavin and other climate modellers).
And yet, by using the same language to describe both Victor and his opponents – you imply the same credibility – see my p.5.
And you still don’t understand the difference between “driver” and “feedback”, and as a result you get your “conclusion” OPPOSITE to what they really are – see my p. 6.
All that – in: my Mar. 4 post .
In Re to Piotr, 5 Apr 2024 at 12:54 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820995
and 4 Apr 2024 at 8:17 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820937.
Dear Piotr,
You are right that the devil may be hidden in details, therefore many thanks for your comments on my questions asked in my reply to Kevin McKinney on 3 Apr 2024 at 9:06 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820854.
I hope that I now understand how Eli Rabett’s post
“Among the strongest evidence for greenhouse gas increases driving observed warming is that you get the same answer for climate sensitivity no matter what the level of model, from Manabe and Wetherald and before to today’s Earth System Models.
If you think about it a bit, that’s because the greenhouse gas influence is so strong that for all practical purposes, it and it alone dominates the trend (and the oceans determine the long term response).”
was meant.
If I understood your explanations correctly, you see my objection against Eli’s assertion moot, because if we find a suitable method for translation of available Earth surface temperature data into a single parameters defining the sought mean Earth surface temperature and clean its time record from the last decades or perhaps centuries from the influence of other non-GHG forcings such as aerosols or changes in Earth albedo, we indeed obtain a very good correlation between the temperature record and the GHG forcing.
I think that you are right and that the reasoning for my objection based on the imperfect correlation between temperature record and CO2 atmospheric concentration was indeed improper, because it basically resulted from my misunderstanding to the word “trend” in Eli’s post. I can now confirm that GHGs may be indeed seen as the prevailing driver for the warming observed during the last decades.
Nevertheless, I have not grasped the logic of Eli’s conclusion yet.
Basically, Eli asserts that certain circumstance (namely, that various levels of climate models (allegedly) provide identical (or very close) values for (not specifically defined) climate sensitivity towards changes in atmospheric concentrations of (not specifically defined) GHGs) can be interpreted as a strong evidence for the above mentioned role of the rising concentration of non-condensing GHGs as the prevailing or basically sole driver for the above mentioned Earth warming trend observed during the last decades.
In my reply of 5 Apr 2024 at 5:00 AM to you,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820963
I wrote:
..if I understood you correctly,
a) either the climate sensitivity towards a change in atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases (which, as you remarked, is actually no constant but should be referenced to an exact concentration change, such as e.g. “from 280 ppm to 560 ppm”, because the dependence is not linear but logarithmic) considers various feedbacks (such as decreasing cloud cover),
b) or it is a “neat” sensitivity to the greenhouse effect of the respective greenhouse gas (e.g. CO2) only, “cleaned up” from all possible feedbacks.
If so, then I understand that in case a) the “complex” climate sensitivities including also various “feedbacks” should differ for different model levels, depending on the extent in which these feedbacks were implemented in the models during their historical development,
In case b), all models (irrespective of their different maturity level, provided that the “neat” greenhouse CO2 effect is treated in all models basically the same way from the very start) should provide the same climate sensitivity towards a reference CO2 concentration change. It should be so, because if defined this way, the climate sensitivity indeed does not depend on the treatment of further climate features in which the models differ from each other.
In this case, however, I am afraid that the narrow range of such “neat” climate sensitivity to the direct greenhouse effect (without *feedbacks” or other “forcings” that depend on the real Earth “setup”) in fact does not provide any information with respect to the question how important is direct CO2 greenhouse effect in comparison with its “feedbacks” and/or with other “forcings”. (end of citation)
I understand that we can express the “neat” sensitivities towards various GHGs as the respective “radiative forcings” in W/m2 and thus enable reporting them as a sum. Nevertheless, I think that various feedbacks to a such “compound GHG radiative forcing” may still depend on parameters such as water availability for evaporation that can be set independently from GHG concentrations (and thus should be in my opinion considered rather as genuine “forcings” than mere “feedbacks”) and that, I suppose, were almost certainly treated differently in different levels of climate models during the entire history of their development.
That is why I still perceive the above cited Eli’s assertion as somewhat suspicious.
I think that you have not addressed these points in your replies yet.
Could you do so in an additional comment?
Thank you in advance and greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz 9 APR: “ You are right that the devil may be hidden in details ”
Except this was no “detail”. but your fundamental assumption on which your entire argument was based.
A classic tactic of a denier – cherry-pick a part of the post of one of their opponents to pit it against selected opinions of other opponents. In this case you try to pit Eli Rabett against those on RC who “stubbornly” [(c) TK] point to statistical ignorance of Victor.
The goal here is to imply that if the “warmists contradict each other” – then the science is not settled, so let’s not rock the boat with GHG mitigation and instead let’s continue burning as much fossil fuels as we want.
Except that to make Eli Rabett appear to contradict the critics of Victor, you have misrepresented Eli Rabett’s arguments, as I have shown in my April 4 post.
If you take away your misrepresentation of Eli Rabett’s, the supposed contradiction with Victor’s opponents … disappears and you have no leg to stand on. False assumption in, garbage conclusions out.
TK: think that you have not addressed these points in your replies yet.
What for? Everything you built on the FALSE assumption does not require any specific rebuttals – showing the assumption being false is enough. Garbage in, garbage out.
For the proof of your misrepresentation, and why you and Victor do not know what you are talking about – see my 6 points in the said April 4 post.
In (belated) response to Tomas, a couple of points.
1) Tomas, you are changing the subject. You had asked whether changing model conditions might give a different picture about the warming effects of CO2. I answered that question quite precisely. Now, you ask “How can we then explain the imperfect correlation between the observed warming and the rising CO2 concentration?” It’s a different question, but I suppose I should be flattered to be asked.
2) The short answer to that question, as Piotr has already indicated, is that nobody says that CO2 is “basically the sole driver of the observed cllimate change / of the observed Earth warming.” At least, they don’t say that, in the sense that CO2 is the only thing affecting GMST at any point in time. Consider the following graph (linked):
https://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/mean:7/plot/gistemp/from:1901/to:1904/trend/offset:0.1/plot/gistemp/from:1945/to:1948/trend/offset:0.1/plot/gistemp/from:1998/to:2001/trend/offset:0.1/plot/gistemp/from:1970/trend
As you can see, I’ve highlighted three “cooling episodes”–Victor’s post-war one (or three years of it, at any rate), plus 1901-1904 and 1998-2001. (For uniformity, I’ve chosen 3-year spans in each case. And unfortunately, the color contrast isn’t as obvious as I’d like, but look closely.) Victor, of course, argues vociferously that these coolings can’t be due to CO2, and (mirabile dictu!) nobody here disagrees. Causality isn’t perhaps clear in each case–there’s ENSO heavily involved in the ’98 episode, certainly–but basically I think we’d all be happy to mutter “natural variability” and pass on. These episodes and their ilk, as well as their warming counterparts, may be seen throughout basically the entire record; MAR calls them, aptly, “wobbles.”
As you can also see, I’ve highlighted the trend from 1970 onwards, and it is quite a different kettle of fish, as they say. This is more or less the span for which statistical analysis–as carried out by, inter alia, Tamino–has detected a “break point” in the data. This is the point at which the GHG-driven trend becomes dominant over natural variability and other forcings. The “wobbles” don’t stop occurring, as you can see, but they are from that point superimposed upon a monotonic trendline reflecting the relentless growth of CO2 concentrations.
So, the dominance or lack of same in CO2’s role as driver of temperature trends is dependent upon the time scale. If you are talking about earlier in the temperature record, or about short timespans, the role is less; if you are talking about recent longer-term trends, the role is much more.
It’s also worth considering the trendline over much longer spans, as this opus from Randall Monroe demonstrates:
https://xkcd.com/1732/
In Re to Kevin McKinney, 13 Apr 2024 at 7:23 AM,
Dear Kevin,
Thank you very much for your feedback.
You are right that my question regarding imperfect correlation between CO2 atmospheric concentration and global mean surface temperature was rather an improper distraction caused by my misunderstanding to the word “trend” as used by Eli. I think that I have meanwhile clarified it in a discussion with Piotr (see above).
So, again, I do not doubt anymore about Eli’s assertion that the rising atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) dominates the observed warming trend of the global climate.
What I still see somewhat questionable is Eli’s assertion of a a direct link between this dominant role of GHGs in the observed warming trend on one hand and (allegedly) the same climate sensitivity of various climate models towards variations in GHGs concentration on the other hand. Herein I still do not see any link at all.
This is a point that I would still like to clarify, see my questions to JCM in another post of today, 2:48 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821320
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomas Kalisz Apr. 15:
“What I still see somewhat questionable is Eli’s assertion of a a direct link between this dominant role of GHGs in the observed warming trend on one hand and (allegedly) the same climate sensitivity of various climate models towards variations in GHGs ”
It is you, who made the claim of “ the same climate sensitivity of various climate models” . Why would you then …. distance yourself from your own claim, by saying about your claim … “allegedly”?
The answer seems to be: “a straw man fallacy”, which:
“ involves deliberate distortion of another person’s argument. By oversimplifying or exaggerating it, the other party creates an easy-to-refute argument and then attacks it.”
Sounds like, well, … many? most? of your posts on RC in the last year.
So before you bait Kevin into answering, and then misrepresent his answer
as a support for your denier conclusions (that the climate science is not reliable
and therefore we can burn as much fossil fuels as Russia and Saudi Arabia would want us to) – how about you make _your_ claims more precise, starting with:
1. what was the numerical value you assigned to to claim different sensitivity estimates are the “same”?
2. since GHGs have dominant role on GMST on climatic time scale – WHY would you even expect that different models of that climate to produce … significantly DIFFERENT (i.e., = outside the range of “the same”) GMST predictions?
Tomas Kalisz
“So, again, I do not doubt anymore about Eli’s assertion that the rising atmospheric concentration of non-condensing greenhouse gases (GHGs) dominates the observed warming trend of the global climate.”
I do not doubt it either. There are many reasons to believe GHGS are dominant.
“What I still see somewhat questionable is Eli’s assertion of a direct link between this dominant role of GHGs in the observed warming trend on one hand and (allegedly) the same climate sensitivity of various climate models towards variations in GHGs concentration on the other hand. Herein I still do not see any link at all.”
Climate models DON”T generate the same climate sensitivity. They generate quite different climate sensitivities because of different assumptions / settings in the models regarding how climate works, strength of feedbacks etc, etc. Refer:
“Additionally, the climate sensitivity simulated by individual climate models also spans a wide range of values. This is especially true in CMIP6 models, where the climate sensitivity ranges from 1.8°C to 5.7°C.”
https://www.jbarisk.com/news-blogs/modelling-and-uncertainty-climate-sensitivity/#:~:text=Additionally%2C%20the%20climate%20sensitivity%20simulated,C%20to%205.7%C2%B0C.
“Climate models give a wide range of sensitivity estimates, so researchers often examine subsets of climate models – selected based on how well they match different present-day observations of the climate. These are referred to here as “constrained models”.”
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-scientists-estimate-climate-sensitivity/
So if Eli Rabbit is wrong about climate sensitivity, perhaps his information is out of date, then the rest of what he’s says related to that is going to be wrong.
In Re to nigelj, 15 Apr 2024 at 6:04 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821333
and to JCM, 15 Apr 2024 at 2:07 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821328 .
Dear Nigel, dear JCM,
Thank you both very much for your convincing explanations.
In the light of them, I would like to conclude that Eli’s assertion
“Among the strongest evidence for greenhouse gas increases driving observed warming is that you get the same answer for climate sensitivity no matter what the level of model, from Manabe and Wetherald and before to today’s Earth System Models.”
of 13 Mar 2024 at 2:29 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820061
is in fact a nonsense.
Piotr ascertained me that this conclusion is right by his surprising attempt of 15 Apr 2024 at 4:10 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821331
to ascribe Eli’s misleading assertion about “the same answer for climate sensitivity no matter what the level of model” to me.
I think we could arrive at this conclusion (that climate models in fact provide quite different climate sensitivities towards changing GHG concentration, and that this scattered output of climate models has hardly any link to the prevailing GHG role in the observed Earth warming) much quicker.
Unfortunately, first replies to my question of 15 Mar 2024 at 8:00 AM regarding Eli’s post –
by Ray Ladbury, 16 Mar 2024 at 7:32 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820168 ,
reading
“What Eli is talking about is in fact strong evidence–when you take a whole bunch of different roads and always wind up in Rome, you have to wonder if maybe the old aphorism might not be true.”
and by Barton Paul Levenson, 1 Apr 2024 at 8:33 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-820791
reading
“TK: Are you sure that the Earth with different setup (including e.g. atmospheric aerosol pollution, heat transport by ocean currents, hydrological regime on the land, etc.) will still exhibit the same climate sensitivity towards CO2 concentration changes that you mentioned in your post?
BPL: Yes, because the climate sensitivity to CO2 doesn’t depend on other factors. You’re confusing a cause with an effect.” –
were not helpful.
Therefore, I am really grateful for your constructive approach that finally clarified the issue.
Best regards
Tomáš
Sorry, Tomas, but I fail at first bluch to see the connection between your question to JCM and either of the topics we’ve been considering.
And for what it is worth, I think that climate sensitivity in models over time is much better characterized as possessing a relatively stable *range* of sensitivities (and, a relatively stable mean value as well)–not as possessing “the same” value. I do not think that Eli R. would disagree. (And I would be very surprised to find per Nigel’s suggestion that his information is in any way out of date. Eli is a very wise ‘rabbit’…)
To Kevin as it relates to Tomas’ question:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821320
Changing surface properties does indeed impact the sensitivity of climates, by causing a change in the net radiative feedback.
For example, it is proposed that creating desert continents causes a destabilizing influence, where the net feedback parameter is made less negative. A less negative radiative feedback is associated with more sensitive climates.
Conversely, the system prescribed with high biodiversity, natural soils, and intact wetland have improved climate stability, and a net radiative feedback that is more negative (stable).
With increasing deviation from the Planck response, ~ -3.3W/m2/K (negative out), the model becomes more sensitive.
The net radiative feedback parameter, λ, varies widely across ESMs: something like -2.5 W/m2/K for relatively stable simulated climates, and -0.5 W/m2/K for highly sensitive simulated climates. The range is not small.
This is what the whole thing is about.
It should be kept in mind that sensitivity as it is defined today is specifically associated with its relation to trace gas forcing.
Presumably, nothing gets off the ground without greenhouse gas – atmosphere, weather, and climates practically do not exist without GHGs as far as I understand. That’s where it starts – and it ends with the feedback parameter. Models are prescribed with forcing, and they sort out the lambda. From this perspective, changing land surface properties could never be distinct from climate sensitivity.
Interannually in observation, it is known the the λ varies widely. This is often associated with more advanced factors of lambda, such as ocean SST oscillations and pattern effects. This is in addition to common ones such as water vapor, lapse rate, albedo, and CRE (SW + LW).
It is simply wrong to suppose that the λ is a constant applicable to any Earth system state. And it is also plainly incorrect to teach that the climate sensitivity of Earth could be applied to other planets. This does not align with any foundational teachings on the subject. There can be no universal climate sensitivity.
Tomas is not wrong to pose the question about possible differences in climate sensitivity after massive terrestrial disruption. These effects must be superimposed on the simple feedback prescriptions of Manabe, and the more advanced feedback regimes of GCMs.
In ESMs today, it’s known that land changes must included to understand climate sensitivity, but astonishingly (to me), these changes are almost exclusively associated with a CO2 effect. These include CO2 forced stomatal conductance issues and CO2 related leaf area, from optical sensor estimates (greenness, LAI, NDVI, etc), for example. This is why I think something has gone wrong, and why Tomas is right to ask his questions.
Tomas Kalisz APr. 16: Piotr ascertained me that [Tomas conclusion that ELi argument is “nonsense”] is right by his surprising attempt of Apr. 15 deniers often lie about others supporting their views, but typically do it in their absence
(Lague et al. have no idea that Tomas uses their work to support his claims). But now our Tomas went one step further – he lies about my support for him to my face (in the thread I am present). “A small step for a Kalisz, a giant leap for denierkind” ?
No I didn’t support your arrogant dismissal of Eli’s argument as “nonsense“.
Of my two specific objections:
– Piotr Apr. 15: “1. what was the numerical value you assigned to claim that different sensitivity estimates are the “same”?
applies both to Eli and to you – since you didn’t criticize Eli for not explaining what he/she meant by “the same”, but only questioned ONLY the “link” between
“ dominant role of GHGs in [AGW] and (allegedly) the same climate sensitivity of various climate models towards variations in GHGs”.
Since neither of you quantified what you mean by “same” – my p. 1 does NOT support YOU against ELi. And if you have had any doubts whose argument are more convincing, my next point should have disabused you of them:
– Piotr Apr.15: “2. since GHGs have dominant role on GMST on climatic time scale – WHY would you even expect that different models of that climate to produce … significantly DIFFERENT (i.e., = outside the range of “the same”) GMST predictions?
See? It does NOT challenge Eli, it challenges you, Tomas Kalisz. So again “my ascertaining” that Eli’s argument is “nonsense”, and Tomas Kalisz is right – is only in your head.
TK Apr 16: “ I think we could arrive at this conclusion (that climate models in fact provide quite different climate sensitivities towards changing GHG concentration, much quicker.”
Put your money where your mouth is – SHOW that different models have wildly different sensitivities to GHG.
Nigel, quoting: “Additionally, the climate sensitivity simulated by individual climate models also spans a wide range of values. This is especially true in CMIP6 models, where the climate sensitivity ranges from 1.8°C to 5.7°C.”
This may be overplaying the actual differences – all you need is one negative and one positive outlier and you get yourself an impressive range … ;-)
Furthermore – how they have carried the inter-comparison? Did they run different models on the same non-Co2 inputs (other GHGs and aerosols) or just compared the outputs when Co2 was doubled compared to pre-industrial.
And while you could provide the same inputs – you can’t standardize the feedbacks in different models – since they part of that that makes one model different from others. But this means that the same warming caused by doubling CO2 in two different models, may be amplified (or reduced) differently by different feedbacks between CO2 and processes affecting T. Hence the differences between model CO2 sensitivity.
For Eli’s thesis “ greenhouse gas increases driving observed warming” to be false the models should not respond to changes in GHGs, i.e. show sensitivity to doubling CO2 as =0°C, or <0°C. Not one of the models your opening quote refers to – does it – the lowest of the bunch was still +1.8°C.
THIS^
There are certainly uncertainties in climate models–some significant. However, the uncertainties do NOT change the things that we know–and one of those things is the role played by CO2 and other well mixed greenhouse gasses.
^THIS – refers to the excellent patient Kevin McKinney expo. He has done terrific (and extended) work on the history of climate research and it would be a mark of wisdom to follow his lead rather than arguing with it. I have forgotten where he posts his work and would appreciate a link if it’s still online & he’s willing to provide it.
Susan, thank you! My climate science history stuff is on Hubpages, along with much else, including music theory, and would-be humorous DIY pieces. Their indexing is dubious, but you can find my piece on Tyndall here:
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Global-Warming-Science-In-The-Age-Of-Queen-Victoria
It has links to several of the other history articles, too.
I recently ran across this article, which seems to show that Soon & the Connolly’s have branched out into epidemiology.
Gerry A Quinn, Michael Connolly, Norman E. Fenton, Steven J. Hatfill, Paul Hynds, Coilín ÓhAiseadha, Karol Sikora, Willie Soon, Ronan Connolly (2024),
“Influence of Seasonality and Public-Health Interventions on the COVID-19 Pandemic in Northern Europe”, Journal of Clinical Medicine, J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(2), 334;
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13020334
J. Clin Med is a MDPI open-access journal
JM: It’s sad but true that conspiracies tend to gang together across fields. RFKJr has found his way to Alex Jones and Steve Bannon (and now, it appears that Aaron Rodgers has a wide affection for any lies going). It almost makes me believe in a divine entity, but one that is evil rather than a great grandfather in the sky looking over us and promising rewards. The rewards all seem to come from the same toxic midden and be dangerous in a variety of ways. A lack of honesty and scruple seems to give some people an advantage over normal mortals who are, on the whole, well intentioned and inclined to care for each other, and tolerant enough to give others the benefit of the doubt.
A simpler explanation is that RFK Jr. is running a long con–but his choice of companions may well mean that he’s become a victim of his own con.
He would not be the first con artist who got high on his own supply.
Thanks, but unfortunately it’s we in the US who are his victims. I’m not interested in his personal hellscape but his danger to the rest of us.
There’s a very strong association between climate denialism and vaccine/Covid denialism. To my mind, that’s pretty prima facie evidence of the political motivations involved–particularly given the observed rise of the latter.
I recently ran across a Guardian page revealing they took in ten million Euros last year to run Green Advertorials. But such is the state of journalistic transparency about PR income, that they took it down, and it took the Wayback Machine to return it to public view.
Big oil spent 27 times more than green groups to keep fossil fuels flowing
https://www.alternet.org/big-oil-outspent-green-groups/
They certainly get worse value for their money., but that does nothing to justify the existence of advertising , behavior modification , or regimentation in general..
Russell, do you really think that if the Green interests stop telling the truth about the fossil fuel companies that the fossil fuel companies will stop lying about everything?
Russell, I’m calling you out for false balance again.
One hardly need justify the existence of those things, you know. Like markets, they are patterns of economic behavior that exist whether or not they are morally justified. Common-pool resource tragedies like global warming are rooted in the selfish behavior of all participants in the global marketplace. Can that be morally justified? Historically, “Big Oil”, i.e. fossil carbon producers and their investors, haven’t had to justify taking all that carbon from long-term sequestration, and selling it to consumers for all the traffic will bear while socializing the marginal climate-change cost out of the price. Meanwhile, we consumers have been happy not to pay for our private marginal climate-change cost every time we buy fossil fuel or anything made with it. We haven’t had to justify making involuntary third parties pay for our emissions instead, often far out of proportion to their own fossil carbon consumption. How can that be justified, in a hypothetically moral universe?
As you know perfectly well, the “free” market socializes every transaction cost it can get away with, and the only moral justification offered is freedom from collective intervention. Now that the causal link between the energy market and global warming is established by science, fossil carbon profits are increasingly threatened by public demands to collectively drive the otherwise-free market to decarbonize. We know, from the efforts of journalists and behavioral scientists over at least the last half-century, that carbon capitalists have invested from the beginning in professional services to modify the behavior of the energy market, in order to thwart collective interference in their business models. That includes advertising, i.e. relentlessly propagating false or misleading information in the public sphere; lobbying public representatives to modify their behavior by voting to protect fossil-fuel profits; and wielding their regimented voters to defeat proposals for collective decarbonization. With profits from the sale of fossil carbon in the $trillions annually, they’d be fools not to! Yet would you justify their actions, Russell?
OTOH: “Green” groups (i.e. non-profit, non-governmental organizations), recognizing that the anthropogenic transfer of fossil carbon to the atmosphere must cease if the rest of us are to avoid catastrophic grief and diseconomy, are in business to promote collective intervention in the energy market. Observing the positive ROI on the denialist campaign, they are deploying advertising, to expose the lies of carbon capitalists; behavior modification, e.g. lobbying politicians to support decarbonization on behalf of the public interest; and even attempts at regimentation, i.e. simply trying to get consumers to act collectively, in their own interests. We’d be fools not to! Utilitarian morality justifies “green” advertising that exhorts consumers with moral arguments, because capping the trend of global heat content, and the final aggregate cost of the warming, is manifestly the greatest good for the greatest number. That’s enough for me. I only wish the public interest wasn’t outspent 27 times by the carbon capitalists.
:
” do you really think that if the Green interests stop telling the truth about the fossil fuel companies that the fossil fuel companies will stop lying about everything?”
Ray , climate advertising is very much the continuation of politics by other means, and “Green interests ” join the fray at risk of the disapproval of those who still embrace the sort of knee jerk bipartisanship once taught as civic norm as “The disinterested spirit of New England..”
Polarizing science in the service of ideology is an ugly business, and remains abhorrent to those who view science politicized as science betrayed.
It suffices to say that if thoughtful greens embraced candor as a norm they would be in a better position to condemn their corporate opponents.
I’m with Russell on this one. Sure, on the whole ‘green’ interests are closer to facing the real problem, but greenwashing is a huge problem, and our financial system rewards hypocrisy. Said hypocrisy is exploited for gain by even more dishonest (but powerful) forces.
Our inability to appreciate the existence of better and worse leads us to enable worst because we can’t get best. Taking our toys and going home doesn’t help.
But burking the facts about the way our system enables hypocrisy because we don’t want to see it doesn’t work either. I don’t have an answer, but I don’t want blinders either.
For a bit of honest fun, sideways, here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRscI7QoO5U
Russell,
I oppose anyone distorting the truth. However, climateball is no longer about science. The relevant science is 30 years old, and the debate should have ended then. Instead, it has merely become more vicious. The denialati are out of facts, so they substitute vitriol.
The fact is that someone needs to counter the fossil fool propaganda, and that is a political battle. We cannot afford to be too pure to play.
it suffices to say that if thoughtful greens embraced candor as a norm they would be in a better position to condemn their corporate opponents.
Well, yes. Thanks to you and Susan for making things clearer. If you’re talking about greenwash, then assuredly, thoughtful greens should embrace candor. As long as we’re clear on who’s really “green” and who isn’t! “The beginning of wisdom, is calling things by their right names” (Chinese proverb). Sophisticated corporate greenwashing has been going on for decades, as Ross Gelbspan was among the first to reveal. Not having a link to the “Green Advertorials” page in your first comment, I supplied my own definition of “Green” to include only above-board, incorporated non-profits honestly working against plutocratic deception. It looks like Ray did also.
Thankfully, independent, quantitative evaluations of corporate non-profit candor are available, to avoid the “no true Scotsman” fallacy. So, Russell, how about a link to the Guardian’s Green Advertorials information? There’s such a thing as too terse!
Dear Russel,
I had no idea that something like expensive “green advertising” does also exist.
If so, is it known who are the people putting their money therein?
I noted that most active proponents of the so called hydrogen economy are companies like Aramco or BP. Is this the case of this “green advertising”?
If you know some details, please share.
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Susan Anderson.
Bit of a nit pick.
I don’t think Russel was referring to Green interests and greenwashing per se. His point seems to be that The Guardian takes money for green issue promoting advertorials whilst not doing the same for fossil fuels, so is applying double standards and promotional bias. Although the Guardian might take fossil fuels money for advertisements ( a different thing to advertorials).
Even if the Guardian do take money for green advertorials it is not going to keep me up at night worrying.
Also the Green movement are surely not responsible for greenwashing. That blame belongs with the corporate sector, that do the minimum possible environmental improvements that makes them look good. Although a few are taking it more seriously.
I’m with Mal Adapted about the market failure and shared commons perspective and thus the need for governments to have strong environmental laws ( I think thats what Mal is saying). Not so sure about his justification for the Guardians position, but its darned clever.
Nigel, I do mean that governments should have strong environmental laws, but in particular that collective (i.e. government) action is essential despite justifiable (IMHO) skepticism of government, if global heat content is to be capped short of civilization-ending levels. And that while government action often has unintended consequences, that is not an argument against collective action to decarbonize the US and global economy, but for collective deliberation undistracted by lies from carbon capitalists. The plutocratic strategy of flooding the public sphere with pernicious nonsense must be countered with truth, even if that requires using some of the same tools and tactics used by the enemy. In any case, we should not underestimate the expertise available to them, with $trillions in annual profits at stake. It puts the insignificant resources of honest non-profits in perspective.
Mal Adapted
” I do mean that governments should have strong environmental laws, but in particular that collective (i.e. government) action is essential despite justifiable (IMHO) skepticism of government, if global heat content is to be capped short of civilization-ending levels.”
Agreed.
FWIW I’ve always been a bit sceptical at times about governments and their incessant rules, especially when they try to dictate what people can do in the bedroom, and I think free market competition does help solve many problems. But overall I believe we need a government and with meaningful powers.
The alternative to having a government is the rule of the jungle as Haiti is now experiencing. Their government is now almost non existent and the country is now ruled by warring gangs. Its chaos. and its deadly
The moral of the story is there is no better alternative to ‘government’ and therefore its a case of having a good government and with suitable controls to prevent abuse of power (The US constitution and system of Government goes some way to doing this).
Because we need a government for society to exist and function it is a case of how much government does, its role, how big government should be as a proportion of the economy. This is fraught with difficulties with no easy answer, but where you get bad market failures I agree with you that governments should intervene with appropriate rules and regulations and a system to resolve disputes in civil court where this makes sense.
Over 100 years of history of such things has seen safety rules, various legislated workers rights, environmental laws and none of this has stopped massive economic growth and wealth creation so the libertarian critics of government don’t have a good case. Anyone who thinks we should have followed Laissez faire capitalism as in the early Victorian age is barking mad in my view. We would not be better off overall and environmental problems would likely be ten times worse than they are.
That said government in the post war period became very big in size and scope of rule making and problematic and did things better suited to the private sector, so it needs a lot of careful thought as to how much government should do. In my view their role should be largely restricted to to criminal law, having legislation around safety and environmental issues, a system of social security or social welfare, and in smaller countries ownership of basic healthcare and a couple of other essential services where its important to ensure everyone has good access.
“The plutocratic strategy of flooding the public sphere with pernicious nonsense must be countered with truth, even if that requires using some of the same tools and tactics used by the enemy”
The Guardian seem to be criticised for accepting money and writing advertorials. Some of our media do that and on second thoughts I dont see it as inherently immoral as long as the funding sources are transparent. However if the advertorials are skewed in a certain direction, it could lead to claims of media bias. I guess its up to the Guardian to decide whether it wants to be balanced or take a particular slant.
I do think the Guardian write good articles and are a quality media company overall. Their climate coverage is good and long may it continue.
Soon ‘s cohort includes revanant John Birchers who cut their teeth on anti-fluoridation activism, and Moncton began touting cures of his own invention over a decade ago.
The cold war nourished a survivalist counter establishment parts of which , like Doctors for Disaster Preparedness and The Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine are still in cahoots eliding bad medicine and worse science.
At times I fear for you, Mal, for this :
“behavior modification, e.g. lobbying politicians to support decarbonization on behalf of the public interest; and even attempts at regimentation, i.e. simply trying to get consumers to act collectively, in their own interests. We’d be fools !”
Too much recalls Lawrence Olivier’s Stalinoid Archers film speech calling for 110% taxation… Big Brother doesn’t deserve fan mail.
Yes, Russell, as at times I fear for you. IMHO you’ might be the smartest person regularly commenting on RC, but you have a history of drawing false equivalence between strategic investment in social engineering by plutocrats protecting their revenue streams on one hand, and honest non-profit, non-governmental organizations spending their comparatively miniscule budgets countering for-profit propaganda OTOH. Your comments on the relative dollar amounts are often ambiguous, but false equivalence is nonetheless implied. I’ll proudly associate myself with Ray here! My verbose style obviously isn’t yours, but it would help if you spoke a little more plainly sometimes.
We know you’re not a climate-science denier, but you may be denying the inescapability of collective action if we are not all to go down in flames. Yes, collective action always occurs on a slippery slope, and I for one prefer it to be taken only when laissez faire has failed. I know you understand that the climate crisis is just such an instance of market failure, an inevitable consequence of not acting collectively. Yet AFAICT, your disdain for collectivism is part of a long-held ideology. We’re not talking about Communism here, Russell! If I’m wrong, I apologize, but false equivalence is a known, insidious form of denialism, and I’m liable to react by reflex. Deal.
Mal: “how about a link to the Guardian’s Green Advertorials information? There’s such a thing as too terse!”
Voila:
“In 2017, The Guardian created theguardian.org, a charity wing to fund news stories in The Guardian along the same lines as NGOs fund campaigns. Skeptics would argue that they are taking donations in exchange for ink and this became evident after a public outcry when they applied for and received a large donation from an animal rights-focused foundation, Open Philanthropy, in exchange for multiple stories against livestock farming. But this is only the tip of the iceberg.
The Guardian became experts in selling their soul and auctioning off journalistic integrity to whomever would write them a check. A simple scan of their website showed 52 donations totalling at least $20,249,000 collected in the last five years. The average donation is around $400,000. Most of it was earmarked for stories on:
Environmental justice and food security: $1,750,000
The Age of Extinction: $1,500,000
Biodiversity loss: $1,400,000
Factory livestock farming: $2,236,000
Climate: $1,500,000
Oceans and climate: $1,600,000
Gun violence: $1,000,000
Editor’s note: Since this article was published, the Guardian took down their web-page with their funding so we have replaced it with the Wayback Machine link. While this is dreadful behavior by a news organization that should be committed to transparency, given the nature of the Guardian’s politics, it is not a surprise.—”
https://www.thefirebreak.org/p/the-guardian-between-grace-and-greed
Russell,
That’s certainly thought provoking and worth a harder look. The Fire Break also says:
Perhaps. The Guardian is also a partner with Covering Climate Now:
In addition The Guardian Environmental Network “brings together the world’s best websites focusing on green topics” which includes Real Climate. So I’d hazard a guess that this also helps explain some of the volume of climate news.
All of which is not to say that The Guardian’s reportage is necessarily stainless, just that regarding climate at least, the story is probably more nuanced.
Hmm. On the face of it, that’s disturbing about the Guardian. Its decision to take down their About Us page doesn’t argue for its commitment to transparency, to be sure. Yet if all we have to go on are that archived page and the critical piece on Fire Break (a forthrightly activist non-profit media watchdog), we should assume there’s more to the story. While the Guardian may be accepting donations from the “Partners” displayed on the archived version of that page, shouldn’t we at least assume they’re no more obligated to slant reporting on those issues than if they accept advertising revenues from for-profit businesses?
Here’s what the Graun now says on its About page:
We know that excellent environmental reporting is expensive, and that traditional print media companies have had to adjust their business models radically for the Internet Age. I, for one, won’t pretend to give anyone business advice. In any case, the venerable Graun is only one source, that is already known to have a somewhat greenward slant (I googled is the guardian green news biased) but also to maintain a close adherence to facts (I looked it up on the Interactive Media Bias Chart®). The paper even presents its position up front, see Media bias is OK – if it’s honest!
However the reporting gets paid for, it’s still essential to get the truth about the Tragedy of the Climate Commons in front of the public, despite a relentless flood of professionally-crafted disinformation, including from the Guardian’s competitors. If we’re on the side of truth, we can’t rely on a sudden change of heart en masse. The task of persuasion will require using the tools available to shine light on the ugly facts. It won’t be pretty, but if rapid global decarbonization is the result, I won’t expect pure motives from anyone. YMMV.
Mal , the deeper problem is the enforced intellectual poverty of those producing the ” relentless flood of professionally-crafted disinformation… from the Guardian’s competitors.”
The result is a complete lack of intellectual competition that bodes for both public discourse and legitimate scientific controversy.
It’s hard to muster a climate policy debate between a confederacy of dunces and the Editorial Collective of a Teen Vogue special issue edited by the Duchess of Sussex.
It only gets worse if you flee towards the South Pole:
,
https://vvattsupwiththat.blogspot.com/2013/02/postmodern-geochemistry-semiotic-carbon.html
“The Semiotic Carbon Cycle”: LOL, Russell! Your comment here is cryptic as ever, but the link to your own site is somewhat more illuminating, not to mention funnier. You do have a way of putting things in perspective over there. I’m pretty sure we’re in vehement agreement about most things!
Yeah, it’s unfortunate that the Guardian took that page down for whatever reason. Transparency matters.
It looks like their donors do cover a wide spectrum, which should help keep the focus from being too narrow. It does get complicated and messy, however.
Three from CJR:
How foundation funding changes the way journalism gets done (2019)
https://www.cjr.org/analysis/foundation-funding-journalism.php
It’s interesting that even PBS takes sponsorship from some of the same donors listed on that Guardian page, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, for instance.
The Web Grows Wider
Gates Foundation partnerships with the Guardian and ABC News further complicate global health coverage (2010)
https://archives.cjr.org/the_observatory/the_web_grows_wider.php
I can’t figure out what’s wrong with reporting on these:
-Environmental justice and food security
-The Age of Extinction
-Biodiversity loss
-Factory livestock farming
-Climate
-Oceans and climate
-Gun violence
Sure, money’s involved. Isn’t it better to use money to report on these vital issues?
Indeed. Particularly since mainstream journalism would rather talk about partisan hypotheticals, street crime outrages, and cute ‘feel-good’ slices of life for about 98% of the time.
Susan. I cant see what’s wrong either.
My understanding is the Guardian take money to produce green advertorials. Its not unethical, as long as things are transparent. Many media do paid for advertorials. The only issue I can see is if all the Guardians advertorials are slanted one way they might be accused of bias. However its up to the Guardian to decide whether it wants to be balanced media or take a strong position.
Russel seems to think The Green movement are being hypocritical by funding green advertorials and criticising fossil fuels companies advertisements (?). I don’t believe its hypocrisy. The Greens are criticising fossil fuels companies for advertisements promoting fossil fuels which is now a proven serious harm. Its a legitimate criticism and doesn’t make them hypocrites. This is different to claiming all advertorials are unethical in principle or should be banned, while running / funding your own. That would be real hypocrisy.
I enjoy reading Guardian from time to time, and they are good media overall with mostly decent quality climate coverage.
And here is the link to the Wayback Guardian Foundation web archive
https://web.archive.org/web/20230930164149/https://theguardian.org/about-us-2/
Nigel, the first energy advertorial scandal I recall was around the time of the Arab Oil Crisis.
Clyde Brown and Herbert Waltzer examined the phenomenon in a 2005 Public Relations Review article entitled :
” Every Thursday: advertorials by Mobil Oil on the op-ed page of The New York Times”
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2005.02.019
Using the Proquest database Greenpeace found in 2017 that Exxon & Mobil’s op-ads commenced in 1974, and continued into the present century after the 1999 Exxon-Mobil merger
Hence my blog’s colophon:
‘Having known Sin at Hiroshima, science was bound to run into Advertising sooner or later.’
Tomáš Kalisz says
9 Apr 2024 at 4:31 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821123
(for example quote)
“If I understood your explanations correctly, you see my objection against Eli’s assertion moot, because if we find a suitable method for translation of available Earth surface temperature data into a single parameters defining the sought mean Earth surface temperature and clean its time record from the last decades or perhaps centuries from the influence of other non-GHG forcings such as aerosols or changes in Earth albedo, we indeed obtain a very good correlation between the temperature record and the GHG forcing.
I think that you are right and that the reasoning for my objection based on the imperfect correlation between temperature record and CO2 atmospheric concentration was indeed improper, because it basically resulted from my misunderstanding to the word “trend” in Eli’s post. I can now confirm that GHGs may be indeed seen as the prevailing driver for the warming observed during the last decades.”
Tomas, not a bad effort. But can I say Piotr is not helping you in any way whatsoever. Not sure eli did either.
Have you ever tried skeptical science site? There are good people there who are genuine and might be able to address your concerns and clear up some confusions. https://skepticalscience.com/ or https://skepticalscience.com/comments.php Bob Loblaw might be a person to ask for input.
I think it is a better forum system than here fwiw. Kind Regards ….. best wishes
NK: It’s not all about you. Good suggestion about SkepticalScience though.
RealClimate are your hosts (translation: you are a guest here) and they work with, not against, SkS. Your attacks are, to say the least, misguided.
Susan Anderson says
10 Apr 2024 at 8:20 AM
I’m so sorry you feel that way.
NK: facts not feelings. I try to put it in the simplest possible language in the hope that you will actually reflect on what you are doing and why.
You expend enormous time and effort trying to set people who should be your colleagues at enmity with each other. It’s relatively easy to scroll past material which we already know in your apparent passion to ‘prove’ that anyone who doesn’t submit is toxic.
For example, I’m a huge fan of Kevin Anderson. I opine he would not appreciate your efforts to rebalance what he says as a weapon against those you belittle, demean, and/or discredit.
As to the substance of what you post when it’s not meant to attack, using RC’s comment section is a great waste. You should form your own blog.
SA: You [NK] expend enormous time and effort trying to set people who should be your colleagues at enmity with each other.
BPL: That’s why he’s here. That’s his purpose in coming here. I’ve been saying for months that Ned is a denier pretending to be on the science side. I don’t know if he’s doing it on his own or if he’s working out of St. Petersburg, but it doesn’t matter. Disrupting the discussion is exactly why he’s here. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
Barton Paul Levenson says
18 Apr 2024 at 7:22 AM
— I’ve been saying for months that Ned is a denier pretending to be on the science side. I don’t know if he’s doing it on his own or if he’s working out of St. Petersburg, but it doesn’t matter. Disrupting the discussion is exactly why he’s here
NK: ROTFLMAO — In fact I come here for the humour! (grinning)
AND
Barton Paul Levenson says
18 Apr 2024 at 7:23 AM
re — “JCM picks the range to give an impression”
No one can determine another’s actual *intent* or *motivation of action* -(except for psychics) – no matter how it may look like to the accuser, or be perceived by them in the context.
Much better to assume nothing and simply ask the question?
OR start wearing a tinfoil cap!
Kind Regards
[ my 3rd post reply to susan’s comment — 2 blocked so far. ]
Susan Anderson says
17 Apr 2024 at 12:26 PM
— For example, I’m a huge fan of Kevin Anderson.
NK: That does not compute Susan. KA believes in all kinds of things that do not comport with your previously stated political views and attitudes about life. In fact are alien to them.
[ 5th attempted response to susan’s comment ]
BPL,
Yup. I think you’re probably right about that. There’s no reason this site wouldn’t be a target for Russian trolls, and NK would make a good candidate for one.
I would think it unlikely that “Ned Kelly” is Russian, his usage of English and nom de guerre suggests that he is most likely Australian. In any case, the question of his national origin is really of little import, Regarding his online persona and behavior though, I would take a careful look at the political views of Dr James Hansen. The content of the posts of “Ned Kelly” can be inferred to parallel those of Dr Hansen albeit, I hope, to an exaggerated degree. I would hope that Dr Hansen himself would not countenance such non-professional behavior as Ned has displayed.
Jonathan David,
Yeah I noticed, and as you say, it’s not as though people don’t misrepresent themselves on the Internet, In terms of behavior, he’s using what comes to hand as a wedge. He posts a lot about climate, but he also drops revealing tidbits in the interstices.
You don’t have to be paid, or Russian, to carry water for, say, Putin– or even particularly aware for that matter, although I think he knows exactly what he’s doing.
I provided a link above, but theres lots more info about trolling on the Internet if the subject interests you.
Jonathan David says
21 Apr 2024 at 10:30 AM
Unlikely? Gee, don’t go out on a limb there Jonathon. :-)
Would you explain what your “yardsticks/standards” are for a Member of the Public regarding the level of Professionalism you expect from them on a Professional Climate Science Blog website.
Dr Hansen himself does not countenance non-professional behavior from climate scientists posting on twitter …. QUOTE May 2023
“There’s no time to get involved in Twitter wars. It’s disappointing that scientists who once Contributed to research progress, but now enjoy twittering, do not correct a nonscientist’s assumption that equilibrium warming = committed warming but instead allow the misconception to persist and then use it to insist that we are “wrong” in our assessment.”
SEE REF https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/comment-page-2/#comment-821604
My observations are Hansen cuts the Public a whole load of slack – he directs his criticisms to those much more deserving who should know better than they act.
But I could be wrong, as I do not know everything Hansen has ever said on the matter.
[ this is the 3rd or 4th attempt to respond to Jonathan … previous one’s were blocked dumped ]
Fascinating! It seems NK posts even more material than is presented here. Does he ever do anything useful? His endless ragebait diminishes the content he posts, and his efforts to ignore the very real dangers we all face in favor of making us fight with each other are both boring and wasteful.
I stand by my suggestion that Kevin Anderson, whose material I have admired and followed for years, would not appreciate NK’s efforts for use him “as a weapon against those [he] belittle[s], demean[s], and/or [attempts to] discredit.”
NKs hatred for Mike Mann is pathological. As I’ve said before, these people mostly work in the same world where they are colleagues and have useful arguments, along with using what influence they have to get the world to pay attention. Trying to set anyone fighting the good fight at enmity would be dangerous if it weren’t so obviously pathological.
It’s sad, because he has the basic idea right, and we’re all pretty much in agreement with his idea of how much danger we’re in. We see the data, we look at the information, and we understand it. Trying to make it something it isn’t is not a useful activity.
As for his personal attacks, I’m a nobody in the world of climate science, and it doesn’t bother me. It’s just weird.
Susan Anderson,
The multiple failed attempts reported by Ned Kelly to post stuff here at RC does sound very odd but I think it demonstrates his failure to cope with the posting procedures rather than some missing input. (Thankfully, the recent commenter-bending incident doesn’t appear to show that he’s back to his sock-puppeteering ways, which did mean additional verbage from him.)
Perhaps I should power up my steam-driven calculation machine and quantify the scale of Ned Kelly’s commenting in recent comment threads.
Also very odd is the absence of a clear statement of Ned Kelly’s true motivation for all this ‘IPCC/Michael Mann-kicking and Hansen-worship that he clogs-up the RC comment threads with.
I haven’t been paying too much attention to his comments since his arrival (April last year?) as they are so badly flawed. (Note his second posted comment 25 mins after the first which well demonstrates a level of incoherence and distain for others commenting here.)
While Ned Kelly’s comments often suggest a troll, the underlying view he is advocating** is that no plans for the de-carbonisation of human society are enough to prevent apocalyptic consequences. Some other measures which are not properly described but which are fundamental to the way humanity conducts itself: such measures are also required. (**Given the ridiculously large amount of commenting from said Ned Kelly, identifying the few that lead me to such an opinion would be a major trawl of RC threads through the past year.)
MAR, I also have no idea what motivates the comments of Ned Kelly. However, I am somewhat dismayed to see what appears to be the very same emotional responses in the posts of Dr Hansen. Read, for example, the “Hope vs Hopium” article. The resentment of “Our friend” Dr Mann “with a large public following” who “refused to concede” to Hansen’s conclusions comes through clearly. One of the principal reservations of Dr Mann to the “Pipeline” paper was Hansen’s apparent advocacy of geo-engineering as “Temporary solar radiation management” which Dr Mann refers to as ” unprecedented, and potentially very dangerous”. Unfortunately, Dr Hansen seems to be in a conundrum. Politically, he seems to be a product of his upbringing as an Iowan growing up in the post-World War II era of American supremacy. As a result, he appears to be a Republican and a rather staunch conservative. He is tied to the ultimately futile concept of unlimited growth in energy utilization and economic business as usual.
Jonathan David,
As we aren’t doing enough to prevent serious climate change (or indeed planning to do enough), it does leave an open goal for grand schemes and grand schemers. Add in an apocalyptic dimension to where climate change is going and such grand schemes will become much more extreme.
I first found the assertions of Jim Hansen rather bizarre some time back when he began to insist that we would see 5m of SLR by 2100. (He had been arguing for 1m-2m 2100 rise previously.) Quite how we would melt the necessary ice to achieve such a 2100 rise remained unexplained until Hansen et al (2016) ‘Ice melt, sea level & superstorms’, long after the crazy SLR doublings of the 2000s had ceased.
(That is not to say that Sea Level Rise is not an extremely serious problem. In my view, the consideration should be what we are stoking up for the centuries post-2100 and not what is/isn’t going to arrive by 2100.)
But now we have the Earth Energy Imbalance as Hansen’s ‘reason to be fearful, this coupled to the falling aerosol levels.
The Michael Mann comment addressing the argument set out in Hansen et al (2023) ‘Global warming in the pipeline’ covers seven points, the seventh being Hansen et al’s argument that geo-engineering is a “required action.” I would myself topple the stool from under such argument by considering the six other points of contention set out by Michael Mann. These are:-
(1) The ‘pipeline’ warming is balanced by the draw-down of GHGs (when we stop emission them).
(2) The measured rise in Earth Energy Imbalance is not matched by the Ocean Heat Content measurements.
(3) An acceleration in surface warming is not statistically established.
(4) The models do not mis-represent the human-caused warming.
(5) The reduced ship-based pollution is not the cause of substantial warming.
(6) Paleoclmatology does not suggest that climate sensitivity is being underestimated.
The sciency thing is then to address these individual points to see how valid they are. (Myself I would certainly not sign up to all of them.) But in the five months since publication I don’t see that happening. The response from Hansen four months in (Hansen et al (2024) ‘Global Warming Acceleration: Hope vs Hopium’) has been pantomime-like, branding it all ‘a refusal to concede’ rather than providing a point-by-point analysis. For whatever personal reason Hansen has for such a poor response (and from this side of the pond, “Republican” or “staunch conservative” don’t mean a lot), it remains a missed opportunity.
Jonathan David (at 30 APR 2024 AT 7:56 AM): – “I am somewhat dismayed to see what appears to be the very same emotional responses in the posts of Dr Hansen.”
Jonathan, what would you make of Professor H. J. Schellnhuber’s Aurelio Peccei Lecture, delivered on 17 Dec 2018?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/unforced-variations-feb-2024/#comment-818872
In particular, check-out the Where on Earth are We Heading: Pliocene or Miocene? slide displayed from time interval 0:24:12, and Schellnhuber’s commentary of it.
I’d suggest Hansen and Schellnhuber are presenting similar scientific findings.
In terms of CO₂ equivalents, the atmosphere in 2022 contained 523 ppm, of which 417 is CO₂ alone. The rest comes from other gases.
https://gml.noaa.gov/aggi/
GHG (e.g. CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, SF₆) levels continue to rise…
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/global.html
I’d suggest, based on the paleo-historical data presented by Schellnhuber in 2018, and the current CO₂ equivalent atmospheric level, the Earth System is currently on a trajectory towards a Miocene-like climate.
Professor Stefan Rahmstorf tweeted on 25 May 2023 a gif animation showing areas of the globe (in purple) that would be considered no longer habitable (MAT ≥ 29 °C) for various global mean warming levels.
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1661450321766371329
I’d suggest that means if we/humanity wish to have a livable planet beyond the next few decades then Reduce, Remove, Repair is non-negotiable.
https://www.climatecodered.org/2023/06/three-climate-interventions-reduce.html
Ned Kelly et al,
Your attempt on another thread at a reply to my comment above is long but not convincing on any of the points you raise.
(1) Hansen’s 5m SLR by 2100
The substance here is whether it is correct to say “the assertions of Jim Hansen … began to insist that we would see 5m of SLR by 2100.” Or is this a “false characterization” and “wrong”?
Back in the 2000s, the IPCC did the world no favours when it made no account of SLR from polar ice melt. Proper estimates were being attempted and a limit of somewhere 1m to 2m 2100 SLR was the outcome with the exception of Hansen’s 5m which was obtained by adopting a 10 year doubling time for Greenland/Antarctic ice loss.
This 2007 account above pre-dates Hansen’s 2008 statement where he puts the 2100 SLR as “at least 1-2 meters … would be practically a dead certainty.” So by 2010, Hansen’s 5m by 2100 is not being insisted but rather puts it on the table.
However a few years later Hansen’s 5m by 2100 has become the sole concern. In Hansen et al (2016) the potential for 5m SLR by 2200 is dismissed on the grounds that it “yields little effect this century” and would require a lengthier modelling period. There is in this 2016 approach an implicit insistence that 5m SLR by 2100 is where we are going. (Yet the exponential Greenland/Antarctic ice loss seen in GRACE that had supported the exponential SLR projections had by then been replaced by less dramatic loss.)
(2) Hansen’s call for geo-engineering
Hansen et al (2023) ‘Global Warming in the Pipeline’ does indeed call for action beyond halting GHG reduction. I think this is something mankind will be having to address and likely in the form of negative emissions. In the Mann critique Hansen’s suggestion was described as a ‘deeply troubling throwaway’ because the Hansen suggestion was for geo-engineering being urgently needed. (Yes, there is an “almost” and a “probably” buried in this quote below but the call for urgent geo-engineering sounds insistent to me.
(3) Hansen has not addressed criticism properly
The argument put by Ned Kelly et al on the other thread goes a bit woolly here. Apparently Hansen has addressed the criticism in his 2023 Hope or Hopium paper. (I think one of the seven was, SAT acceleration, but this was an inexplicit doubling down not the direct refutation I would have employed.) And the Mann critique is apparently not sciency enough or the product of the IPCC or equivalent. (I don’t think peer review or the IPCC is required. Criticism is criticism and like this blather from Ned Kelly et al it can be addressed.)
And that takes us to Ned Kelly’s “Kind Regards” which I take to be the finish of the Ned Kelly et al blather.
Can anyone, MAR included, rationally explain why he keeps talking about Hansen et al 2023 on this more-solar-shenanigans RC article page …. and in a thread of a series of comments unrelated to Hansen et al 2023 – AND totally unrelated to more-solar-shenanigans ?
It’s Off Topic. I thought the rules were Off Topic is a no-no.
Kind regards ….. :-)
a few questions to MA Rodger, 2 MAY 2024 AT 5:55 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821756
Dear MA,
1) With respect to possibility of a partial or complete global warming mitigation by artificial aerosol atmospheric pollution, I several times tried to attract an attemption to concerns raised by professor Axel Kleidon.
He objected that “fighting” GHG effects with aerosols might come at the expense of decreasing global water cycle intensity. Unfortunately, nobody touched this topics here on this forum yet, although it seems that it might be crucial. Could I perhaps ask you for a comment?
2) It appears that you are quite familiar with climate data. In previous discussions about water cycle, I several times tried to ask if global precipitation data from satellite observations and/or gravity measurements (GRACE, GRACE FO) provide a hint that continents generally, or at least some of them (e.g. Europe), “desiccated” during the last decades.
Could you explain if these data
a) indeed enable such evaluation, however, actually do not show any clear evidence for a such conclusion, or
b) perhaps basically could enable such evaluation, however, nobody was sufficiently motivated yet to undertake this enterprise, or
c) still have not a sufficient quality that might enable a such evaluation?
Thank you in advance and best regards
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz,
It is a long time since I have attempted to assist you with you analyses (which were quite crazy in the past but may have since become better founded).
The only satellite data that could provide a measure of levels of land ‘desiccation’ would be GRACE/GRACE-FO which you name. The data is thus post-2002 only.
Rainfall data (which is only one side of the ‘desiccation’ equation) remains extremely variable, even for global averages. (NOAA numbers show annual global average land precipitation has risen by +0.5 inches 1900-to-date but individual years show a scatter of +/-1.5 inches.)
With that in mind, the GRACE data is showing trends in land-water storage (this including ice-loss and pumped-out sub-ground waters, these being the only significant thing GRACE would be measuring). While there is still a lot of noise in the analysis, there is a gridded data set announced by Gerdener et al (2023) and simple averaging does show areas of ‘desiccation’ (and presumably this will not generally be mass-loss due to pumped-out aquifers), this the un-scaled graphic here and the flood of numbers on offer in the NASA GRACE Data Analysis Tool.
In Re to Ned Kelly, 9 Apr 2024 at 10:29 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821158
Dear Ms. Kelly,
Many thanks for your hint to the Skeptical Science website. If you think they might be more responsive than the RC crew, I will try to explore.
I appreciate your efforts, because I think that being aware of possible discrepancies in present teachings about climate change and about climate (and climate change) driving mechanismsmight be useful and might help to a better risk management.
Do I understood correctly that one crucial difference between Hansen et al on one side and CMIP models on the other side may be in that CMIP models still basically assume that cloud formation is a mere “temperature” feedback to the GHG forcing, whereas Hansen et al assert that at the same GHG forcing, cloud feedbacks may be quite different, depending on the character and intensity of aerosol pollution?
If so, then I would like to add further doubt about the simple picture that various “feedbacks” can be unequivocally ascribed to various “forcings” and that there do not occur any synergies between different “forcings” that might cause significant non-linearities in “feedback” “responses”.
Have you noted the last JCM posts of 5 Apr 2024 at 11:40 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820984 ,
5 Apr 2024 at 12:24 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-820990
and 9 Apr 2024 at 10:12 AM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/unforced-variations-apr-2024/#comment-821134 ?
He seems to object that modellers focus on the fit of their models with historical temperature record but do not care much about their fit with precipitation records. It might be partly caused by the circumstance that we likely have not yet found suitable proxy data enabling reconstruction of past global precipitation record (and of the corresponding historical latent heat flux record) with a reliability comparable with proxy data enabling past temperature reconstructions.
Nevertheless, I have a feeling that although satellite data for global precipitation became available during roughly last three decades, it appears that even these abundant data are still not being used by modellers as a scrutiny for reliability of their creations. The recent JCM’s posts enhanced this suspicion.
On this forum, I have already asked questions regarding reliability of state-of-art climate models in case that they indeed do fit with temperature record but not necessarily with precipitation records, and have never obtained any response. I cannot say that it had strengthened my faith in trustworthiness of future climate projections based on these models.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz says
10 Apr 2024 at 10:36 AM
HI Tomas, sorry I missed this query of yours to me.
I’m not up to getting into the weeds of all the variations that your questions might raise. But I thought (if you had not read it already) that Hansen’s Hopium article from late March touches on these “unknowns” regarding clouds in the models …..
if short of time scroll down to … Global ASR and EEI (Fig. 7) aid understanding of climate change. section, bottom of page 4.
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
There’s much more detail in his Pipeline paper … and possibly in his other articles;
https://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/
but it is up to you where you want to head with your inquiry.
Also just posted a talk and paper by 2023 Geeta Persad — Rapidly evolving aerosol emissions are a dangerous omission from near-term climate risk assessments – IOPscience
Might have some insights. Cheers
Ned Kelly: “ Tomas, not a bad effort. ”
Given that Tomas have just based many pages of his writing on …. misconstruing /misrepresenting ELi’s argument – seething sarcasm, I presume ? ;-)
NK “ But can I say Piotr is not helping you in any way whatsoever.
What a strange thing to say – I have posted on April 4). 6 falsifiable points, each independently showing that your strange bedfellows, Victor and Tomas, are wrong. Neither Victor nor Tomas managed to falsify even one of them. Nor have you. Until you do – Hitchen’s razor. (“ what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.”).
nigelj says
15 Apr 2024 at 6:04 PM
@
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821333
Way to go nigelj – good stuff – I agree
TO – Tomáš Kalisz says
16 Apr 2024 at 4:36 AM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821346
Tomas, this may assist you in thinking about ECS etc and how the models unfold – in this instance about clouds – and apologies if it too technical at times. I think it is very good explanation of the process, and why CMIP6 output was “exceptional”
Kind Regards
Recall the hoopla over Sabine H comments on CMIP6 hot models and the issue of clouds.
Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their predecessors.
Mark Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Physics Colloquium 2021-01-28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8
“Why climate sensitivities in the latest state-of-the-art models are substantially larger than in their predecessors. The primary culprit is clouds: Planetary warming causes low-level clouds to become less extensive and less reflective, inducing further warming – an amplifying feedback that has strengthened in the latest models. This stronger positive cloud feedback arises due to changes in model physics and may be related to improved representation of cloud ice and liquid water content. Given the prominence of low cloud feedback in driving uncertainty in climate sensitivity, I will then discuss our efforts to constrain the global marine low cloud feedback using satellite observations of how low cloud properties respond to meteorology. This work indicates that the observed sensitivity of low clouds to their environmental controls is incompatible with very high or very low values of climate sensitivity.”
Mark provides a basic explanation of how ECS is arrived at early on in his talk. And then one might like to consider adding to this warming driven change in cloud behaviour a significant global reduction of cloud forming SO2 aerosols across the Oceans beginning in 2010 and expanded in 2020 as per Hansen et al 2023
In Re to Ned Kelly, 16 Apr 2024 at 10:03 PM,
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821368
Dear Ned,
It is my feeling that in present climate models, or at least in evaluations of their fit with reality, it is still somehow supposed that the values characterizing the modelled climate can be calculated as a sum of additive contributions coming from particular “forcings” and “feedbacks”.
My experience of a chemist is that even though chemistry exists already for some 250 years as an established empirical science and nowadays is supported also with a quite deep insight into its physical principles and with sophisticated tools for theoretical and computational modelling, it still remains and adventure full of unexpected surprises. Its strength is not in its predictions but rather in its capability to explain in hindsight the experiments and observations made.
In other words, chemistry is not “just physics” yet, something like, as I wrote elsewhere on this website, launching a space probe to another planet of our Solar system, with a reasonable expectation that it indeed arrives as required. In this respect, I wonder any time when I read or hear that climate models (that should characterize a much more complex system than any laboratory chemical reaction) are “just physics” and that “physics” allegedly makes their results trustworthy and reliable.
I suspect that activists, educators and / or journalists spreading such views have likely never made a personal experience with (un)reliability of any extrapolation of a more-less proven knowledge beyond the relatively “safe” scope wherein it has been actually explored.
If I return back to “cloud response” as an alleged “temperature feedback” of an energy imbalance on one hand, and “aerosol forcing” allegedly working merely through its (itself complex) direct influence on radiative fluxes through reflection, scattering and absorption of the radiation at its various wavelengths on the other hand, I wonder how all the scientists assigning the observed changes in climate to particular contributions from these particular “forcings” and “feedbacks” arrived at the assumption of their additivity?
I think that it is quite likely that e.g. the “cloud feedback” is in fact a complex result of at least three basic “forcings” that may be practically independent from each other: temperature / energy flux (im)balance, availability of water for evaporation from the surface, concentration particle distribution and surface characteristics of atmospheric aerosols. If they all act in accord, it may be well possible that there in fact exist strong non-linearities in the actual “response” (e.g. due to quite likely circumstance that aerosols may act as condensation centers for cloud formation, and cloud formation and possible water precipitation may influence the rate of atmosphere “cleaning” from the aerosols). In a such situation, attempts to decompose the response to additive contributions of particular forcings can become misleading, I am afraid.
In this respect, I can imagine that both James Hansen and Michael Mann may be both right and wrong at the same time in their dispute about aerosol role, because no one could possibly fully grasp the entire complexity of the “aerosol forcing” and “cloud response” yet.
Greetings
Tomáš
Tomáš Kalisz says
17 Apr 2024 at 8:16 AM
RE “… and that “physics” allegedly makes their results trustworthy and reliable.”
I wish to emphasize my info above was intended only as informative/basics, and not an effort to prosecute the efficacy/reliability or accuracy of said Modeled outputs. Merely an effort to assist you (and others) on the actual processes being applied at this time by the experts like Mark Zelinka et al.
From your response it sounds as if you already understand the deficiencies, especially regaridng the broad variance / assumptions applied to aerosol & cloud behaviour in these models. All are assumptions, well educated or not they are not definitive nor represent real world action.
iow my non-scientific pov is that different places “force feed” their models with assumptions hoping for a reasonable output that is “useful” and fits other measured phenomena – such as mean global temperatures. These yardsticks applied to modeled outputs do not imho necessarily fit – the gaps are everywhere… while basic knowledge of the physics is sound – ie aerosol do reflect and drive lower temps overall. Clouds do have warming and cooling effects, as does water vapor. How exactly that pans out imho the climate scientists are over egging the souffle – first they admit they don;t really know, and int he next breath they are demanding the Models are cutting edge reliable science and must be Obeyed – or else you are a climate science denier. There is no credibility in such attitudes from the science community.
The video above, I hope you watched it, shows clearly how wrong climate science models were in CMIP5 — outputs matching observations are imho a coincidence only. When they do not “fit” the scientists in charge simply delete them, ignore wayward models as happened in CMIP6 with the wolf pack.
Deleting the wolf pack does not solve the problem the models are in fact unreliable (aka guesswork) and not fit for purpose. If they were credible and based on sound physics they could be so easily dismissed out of hand and ignored. In normal person speak, the climate scientists have bitten off more than they can chew while still pretending their work is formidable, expert, valid and trustworthy.
Would you buy a used car from a climate science modeler?
TOMAS: RE “I can imagine that both James Hansen and Michael Mann may be both right and wrong at the same time …”
Exactly the point! But there is a differecne Tomas.
Hansen is presenting data and analysis (physics logic) that goes beyond the use of models, does not rely upon them at all, but is based on real world observations, known physics and past paleoclimate understanding of global warming shifts …… then logically posits his hypothesis of recent warming acceleration.
Mann on the other-hand is much more like a Vatican Cardinal from the dark ages where the authoritative powers of the Pope now rest solely in the demand that individual science work/papers are invalid and that only the consensus of the IPCC level experts (the new Cardinals) is acceptable.
Everyone else must stop thinking for themselves or expressing options that goes against the prevailing accepted consensus. New peer-reviewed science papers DO NOT COUNT ANYMORE – This is draconian BULLYING behaviour – it is not science. Not to mention extremely disrespectful and unhinged histrionics.
The issues today go beyond whether or not the technical math inputted into the models and their output is accurate or not. We all know it isn’t. The bigger problem is the bullying and the politics going on now where people are unable to present their work without being insulted, publicly undermined in the media, and told to shut up!
See my post quoting Kevin Anderson as just one example re IAMs and the IPCC “consensus” which isn’t a consensus and isn’t scientific at all.
This split in climate science and what are credible goals, genuine solutions, and are valid genuine projections is showing up everywhere. Mann and Hansen is the tip of a huge iceberg that has always been there behind the scenes, unknown and unnoticed, and rarely reported upon and always denied.
I sum it up thusly: It’s a Mess!
CORRECTION – “If they were credible and based on sound physics”
There would not be a ‘wolf pack’ to discard!
Hello Ned Kelly. omitted in this chat is mentioning the differences in diagnosed effective radiative forcing ERF to CO2 doubling, although they are depicted with a range of 2.7 to 4.5 W/m2.
A large aspect of effective radiative forcing, distinct from the feedback (lambda), is the Cloud Radiative Effect (CRE) ERF influences. That is CRE ERF LW and SW factors. Distinguishing feedback and effective radiative forcing is a challenge, in addition to disambiguating the factors of changing ERF using observational methods.
For example, one complication is the changing surface properties and the associated impacts on the atmospheric adjustments involved in ERF. Moisture suppression might show up in the ERF depending on model setup, same with aerosol, but i’ve been reluctant to get into that on these pages where participants are still grappling with the fundamental concepts, and many appear to be severely impeded by their own biases and discriminatory behavior.
cheers
JCM says
17 Apr 2024 at 11:33 AM
Yes of course. ERF as well, it’s part of the assumed inputs. Model setups vary. And so do the kinds of things they are designed to project/represent as outputs. Unfortunately I am not skilled enough to keep up with your particular interest – but I think I follow where you are coming from and why.
There is huge reticence in speaking about the model inputs. eg Gavin “the CMIP6 projections are based on. These simulations used […] as well as forecast decreases in aerosol emissions. “ https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/04/much-ado-about-acceleration/
Similar lines are expressed all the time online by climate scientists provided as a justifiable reason to dismiss/discard Hansen et al (and other papers) outright.
Of course they never once DEFINE EXACTLY WHAT AEROSOL DECREASES, NOR WHEN THEY ASSUME THEY WILL OCCUR in these Models — Nor if these PROJECTED ASSUMPTIONS actually MATCH real world measurements later (themselves which are flawed with questionable accuracy) or the timing of Changes in SO2 for example.
CMIP6 is using 2014 GHG emissions data, and other assumptions – it is now a decade later. In the same breath they declare multiple errors were made in CMIP5 – and please ignore the erros from the Wolf Pack — “nothing to see here”, says Obi won Kenobe in the Bar.
iow all they have is Rhetoric – not scientific rigour nor real Data supporting their public (non-peer reviewed) assertions.
Whereas Hansen et al covers the issues of ERF as well in their discussions and data – some examples here
https://nitter.poast.org/LeonSimons8/search?f=tweets&q=ERF&since=&until=&near=
And round and round we go
Kind Regards
NK
CMIP6 uses historical data to 2014 because planning started in 2013, and publication of the overview came in 2016, with 33 models participating by 2018.
CMIP is working toward a more nimble architecture, with multiple “fast tracks” that will presumably enable faster data assimilation and the like. It’s discussed here:
https://wcrp-cmip.org/cmip7/
(Maybe this would be a good topic for a future RC post?)
But it’s pretty bootless to act as if there’s some terrible dereliction of duty here–particularly when the ignorance of what is happening, and why, is pretty obvious.
Kevin McKinney says
19 Apr 2024 at 12:34 PM
“particularly when the ignorance of what is happening, and why, is pretty obvious.”
Kevin, imho, it is NOT obvious to the general public, nor the climate orientated Media in the mainstream and Alt versions, nor is it obvious to those everyday people in the public you would automatically describe as “climate science deniers” for the simple reason they do not trust what they have been getting told via the media/social media etc etc
Now, does it need to be pointed out every time that simply asserting something is “wrong” – “unknown” – “not fully known” – “has no supporting evidence” – “are only assumptions” – is unreliable data” (etc etc) – does NOT add up to accusing anyone of nefarious ill intent or deceit?
If you believe such a thing should be clarified every time someone points out a climate science error (or unknown fact) could you please explain to me why and how do you expect the rest of the world to comply with such a demand?
Thank You,
Kind regards …
#2 The level of denial and excuse making is astounding to me.
Kevin agrees with what the facts about CMIP6 I posted above and what so many people are relying upon as the ONLY perspective that is “scientifically valid” today
– I repeat — CMIP6 is using 2014 GHG emissions data, and other assumptions – it is now a decade later. In the same breath they declare multiple errors were made in CMIP5 – and please ignore the errors from the Wolf Pack — “nothing to see here” —- iow all they have is Rhetoric – not scientific rigour nor real Data supporting their public (non-peer reviewed) assertions.
AND Note in particular what James Hansen says in late March 2024 —
“The scientists reject, without any evidence to the contrary, the evidence we presented that IPCC’s best estimates for climate sensitivity and human-made aerosol forcing are substantial underestimates. They rule out, without evidence, our suggestion that decreases of aerosols, especially those produced by ships, are a significant climate forcing that is causing global warming acceleration.” See Page 3 –
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2024/Hopium.MarchEmail.2024.03.29.pdf
Prof Michael E. Mann
IPCC represents the consensus. Individual articles don’t. Until there’s a major assessment (NAS or IPCC) saying otherwise, the claim of a sharp decrease in global aerosol forcing past 4 years must be considered an extraordinary claim lacking evidence. I’m done w/ this now, ok?
Jun 27, 2023 · 2:01 AM UTC Prof Michael E. Mann @MichaelEMann
https://nitter.poast.org/MichaelEMann/status/1673511877790388225#m
So much for being “close”
Kind regards ….
PS to JCM says
17 Apr 2024 at 11:33 AM
as an example please see Hansen et al 2023 discussion ERF where he gets into the weeds
https://academic.oup.com/oocc/article/3/1/kgad008/7335889
sections
IPCC and independent climate sensitivity estimates
and
Climate forcing definitions
eg
That GCM run also defines δTo, the global mean surface air temperature change caused by the forcing with SST fixed. λ is the model’s ECS in °C per W/m2. δTo/λ is the portion of the total forcing (Fs) that is ‘used up’ in causing the δTo warming; radiative flux to space increases by δTo/λ due to warming of the land surface and global air. The term δTo/λ is usually, but not always, less than 10% of Fo. Thus, it is better not to neglect δTo/λ. IPCC AR5 and AR6 define effective radiative forcing as ERF = Fo. Omission of δTo/λ was intentional [29] and is not an issue if the practice is followed consistently. However, when the forcing is used to calculate global surface temperature response, the forcing to use is Fs, not Fo. It would be useful if both Fo and δTo were reported for all climate models.
eg
https://academic.oup.com/view-large/423296445
It’s a detailed paper, not the usual fare.
Gavin posits modeled forecast graph by Hansen is the same as the IPCC/CMIP6 forecasts – both showing “acceleration”
The problem is, as I stated on that thread earlier — they may look the same but they come from very different starting places. They are NOT comparable entities. The devil is in the details — and this is what I see hear you and Paul Pukite (and Tomas too) and Hansen/Simons addressing as well – the theoretical details do not match the real world..
The real world is the actual Physics in action. Not the Models or the assumptions made to get the Models.
My “hypothesis” is that most people have NOT read Hansen et al 2023, nor do they understand it if they tried to read it.
Same as no one here listens to you except to put you down. Too easy to dismiss out of hand. A threat to the infallibility of today’s version of Catholic ‘Cardinals’ and the IPCC – the New Age Pope.
Kind regards
JCM: the differences in diagnosed effective radiative forcing ERF to CO2 doubling, although they are depicted with a range of 2.7 to 4.5 W/m2.
BPL: Note that JCM picks the range to give an impression of great disagreement. What’s the mean and standard deviation, JCM? Or the mean and the probable error?
to BPL
In responding to NK I squinted and read the values directly from the screen in the youtube presentation provided in Ned’s contribution in: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821368
“Global warming is larger in the latest climate models than in their predecessors.
Mark Zelinka, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Physics Colloquium 2021-01-28
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8”
There the variable ERF is correlated with the lambda among the soup of compensating errors across models. There is no nefarious intent in reading these values from the screen; it is merely to notice that Zelinka did not touch on that. Other times a fixed initial radiative forcing is used and the internal compensating errors are distributed only to lambda.
I subsequently pointed out difficulties in disambiguating the atmospheric adjustments and feedbacks; where a variable moisture regime is involved in both ERF and lambda through the CRE.
Again TO Tomáš Kalisz says
16 Apr 2024 at 4:36 AM
and
JCM says
16 Apr 2024 at 9:01 PM
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/03/more-solar-shenanigans/#comment-821363
JCM makes a great contribution there.
The following refs may be of some assistance as well to hopefully distill out the disinfo-semantics-confusion distorting rhetoric (?) put by others (?)
first see by Gavin
“The second issue is that the spread of the models’ climate sensitivity is much wider than in CMIP5” etc etc
showing graphs / data from Mark Zelinka
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2021/08/notallmodels/
which refs back my other post from Mark Zelinka …. above https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hv6nsvsGGr8
and
“The tensions between these different directions has existed for decades, but some of the new elements (the role of AI/ML, the increased spread of ECS in CMIP6, the demonstrated utility of Large Ensembles etc.) add some wrinkles to the discussion. ”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/03/the-future-of-climate-modeling/
background
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2023/02/2022-updates-to-model-observation-comparisons/
More than 50 such models were assessed and compared in the latest round of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project, phase 6 (CMIP6)
While Chatgtp reports thusly —
Different CMIP6 climate models do exhibit different sensitivities to greenhouse gases (GHGs). Climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium global surface temperature change in response to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations. CMIP6 models have a range of climate sensitivities, primarily due to differences in their representation of physical processes, feedbacks, and model parameters.
The range of climate sensitivity among CMIP6 models is influenced by factors such as cloud feedbacks, ocean heat uptake, and the representation of aerosols and their interactions with clouds. Some models may exhibit higher sensitivity, leading to more pronounced warming in response to GHG increases, while others may show lower sensitivity.
These differences in sensitivity contribute to the range of projections for future climate change produced by CMIP6 models, highlighting the importance of considering a range of model outcomes when assessing future climate scenarios.
In climate models, the sensitivity to different greenhouse gases is typically represented by their radiative forcing, which is the change in energy balance at the top of the atmosphere due to the presence of a greenhouse gas. Different greenhouse gases have different radiative forcing potentials, and models generally account for these differences in their formulations. For example, methane (CH4) has a higher radiative forcing potential per unit mass compared to CO2, but it also has a shorter atmospheric lifetime.
So, while different climate models may use different parameterizations and assumptions for greenhouse gas radiative forcing, they generally apply consistent principles in representing the different radiative properties of various greenhouse gases.
I’m not saying that all models use the same radiative forcing value for CO2 in their calculations. While there is a consensus among climate models regarding the basic physics of CO2’s radiative forcing, there can be differences in how models represent certain aspects.
For example, models may differ in how they account for the effects of clouds, aerosols, and other feedback mechanisms that can influence CO2’s radiative forcing. Additionally, there can be differences in the treatment of CO2 concentrations over time, as some models may use different emission scenarios or assumptions about future CO2 levels.
Overall, while there is general agreement on the basic principles of CO2’s radiative forcing among climate models, there can be variations in how these principles are implemented, leading to differences in the specific values used in calculations.
[end quotes]
You may notice JCM referred to some of those matters above.
Good luck working your way through these things. Not easy.
Kind regards
NK