Home/BlogThe Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for August, 2019 was +0.38 deg. C, unchanged from July, 2019:
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST
2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.06 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52
2018 02 +0.24 +0.28 +0.21 +0.05 +0.99 +1.22 +0.35
2018 03 +0.28 +0.43 +0.12 +0.08 -0.19 -0.32 +0.76
2018 04 +0.21 +0.32 +0.09 -0.14 +0.06 +1.02 +0.84
2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.01 +1.90 +0.14 -0.24
2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.11 +1.11 +0.76 -0.42
2018 07 +0.30 +0.38 +0.22 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.48
2018 08 +0.18 +0.21 +0.16 +0.11 +0.02 +0.11 +0.37
2018 09 +0.13 +0.14 +0.13 +0.22 +0.89 +0.23 +0.27
2018 10 +0.19 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43
2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.27 +0.45 -1.16 +0.68 +0.55
2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.14 +0.30 +0.25 +0.69 +1.20
2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.35 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15
2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.05
2019 03 +0.34 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.58
2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.53 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91
2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.39 -0.61 +0.98 +0.38
2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.90 +0.35
2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33 +0.87
2019 08 +0.38 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.23
This makes August, 2019 the 4th warmest August in the 41 year satellite record, behind 1998 (+0.52), 2016 (+0.44), and 2017 (+0.42).
The UAH LT global anomaly image for August, 2019 should be available in the next few days here.
The global and regional monthly anomalies for the various atmospheric layers we monitor should be available in the next few days at the following locations:
Lower Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
Mid-Troposphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tmt/uahncdc_mt_6.0.txt
Tropopause: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/ttp/uahncdc_tp_6.0.txt
Lower Stratosphere: http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt
This brings the LT anomaly’s acceleration up to 0.011 C/decade^2
😉
Let’s face it, we will not get back to that zero line without some serious geoengineering.
… excluding short term volcano effects and the like.
However no telling how much longer the now 3.5-year cooling trend from February 2016 will last.
You are hilarious.
The cooling trend is no laughing matter. As noted, no one can say how much longer the danger well last.
Super El Nio 2016 was just 0.12 degrees C balmier than that of 1998. So not much warming during 17 years and ten months. It’s a rate of just 0.067 degree C per decade, ie about half the trend of 0.13 degree C per decade since 1979.
The super warming that started in 2008 is now in its 11th year. The trend is about triple Spencer’s 0.13 since then. Even with the double dip La Nina since 2016.
Will warming keep accelerating like it has for the past 40 years?
John Tillman says:
Super El Nio 2016 was just 0.12 degrees C balmier than that of 1998. So not much warming during 17 years and ten months. It’s a rate of just 0.067 degree C per decade
That’s not how trends are calculated.
In fact, the UAH LT linear trend over the last 17 yrs 10 months is +0.13 C/decade.
And yet the 13 month average is only .1C warmer than it was in 2002, the beginning of the pause. Be afraid (be very afraid)…
Mike,
That’s not comparable. The 2008 low was far from the record low since 1979. The 2016 high was the high in the dedicated satellite record.
For an uptrend to be reestablished, the 2016 high will have to be taken out.
David,
I referred not to the past 17 years and ten months, but to that time between two Super El Ninos, ie 4/1998 to 2/2016 peaks.
As you prefer to calculate the trend, from 1998 to 2016, it was -0.0094 degree C per decade:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:1998/to:2016/trend
John, how many 3 year cooling trends can you see in that graph?
L,
Why do you care? Are you just trying to let others know what a clever chap you are?
It didn’t work. Just as stupid and ignorant as ever.
Cheers.
David Appell says:
John Tillman says:
Super El Nio 2016 was just 0.12 degrees C balmier than that of 1998. So not much warming during 17 years and ten months. It’s a rate of just 0.067 degree C per decade
That’s not how trends are calculated.
In fact, the UAH LT linear trend over the last 17 yrs 10 months is +0.13 C/decade.
===================
Thats pretty ignorant David. John did much better than you drawing a line from an El Nino peak to an El Nino peak.
You chose to start with a La Nina and end with an El Nino. If you are going to correct John in order to include every month in his 17 year 10 months, you should use his time frame. It actually comes out less at .047C per decade.
For the past 25 years the rate of warming has been .10c/decade.
climate warming? more like climate boring? And still the chickens run around like their heads were cut off.
mike stiller…”The super warming that started in 2008 is now in its 11th year”.
You must be looking at the fudged NOAA data. The UAH data does not show a rise from the 1998 – 2015 flat trend till 2015. We are 4 years into it and as John Tillman pointed out, 3.5 years of that period has been a negative trend.
That’s because it’s random.
John Tillman says:
As you prefer to calculate the trend, from 1998 to 2016, it was -0.0094 degree C per decade:
I calculate it’s +0.05 +/- 0.13 C/decade. (95% confidence limit)
The large error bar indicates the time interval is too small to give statistically significant results.
In other words, you’re cherry picking — defined as choosing the time limits to give the result you want regardless of whether it’s meaningful.
Gordon Robertson says:
You must be looking at the fudged NOAA data.
Gordon, what’s your evidence of “fudging?”
Bill: I just used the time interval John choose.
I find the UAH LT trend over the last 25 years is 0.11 +/- 0.07 C/decade.
For RSS LT it’s 0.20 C/decade.
And higher for the surface temperatures (where we live). Even higher for *land* surface temperatures. GISS says it’s 0.23 C/dec.
And of course warming isn’t going to stop here — it’s accelerating.
You don’t really understand the term “trend,” do you?
John, you see that red line on the chart? That is the 13 month trend. You see how the line is going up? That means the trend is warming and it has been since the middle of last year. The trend line has now been above 0.2 C anomaly for five years. It never even got that high in the first 18 years of measurements.
John/Bill, can you provide rationale for why computing a trend from 2 data points is better than computing it from ALL data points?
How cold do you wish it gets, Loydo?
Would 1970s be cold enough, or do we need to go back to the LIA for catastrophic mildness to be averted?
How many weeks shaved off of our growing seasons would be optimal?
David Appell says: Bill: I just used the time interval John choose.
————–
No you didn’t! His time period was from the peak of the 97/98 El Nino to the peak of the 15/16 El Nino about 17 years and 10 months.
Check your math again I get .10c/decade. Haven’t found Excel to get it wrong yet.
David Appell says:
I find the UAH LT trend over the last 25 years is 0.11 +/- 0.07 C/decade.
—————————
Check your math again I get .10c/decade for the last 25 years.
It’s not a big enough difference to look at any more.
David Appell says: It’s not a big enough difference to look at any more.
—————
Really indeed not much going on at all. Ever since Dr Santer did his statistical “fingerprint” study on 17 years of warming ending in 1997, practically nothing has happened. Over the past 34 years of data the Santer established 17 year long “climate trends” has fluctuated over a range from .22C/decade to -.05C/decade.
And we may have only seen the warm side of the ocean oscillations.
++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++
David Appell says:
Global cooling is always JUUUUUST around the corner, isn’t it?
—————————
Huh? We have been bouncing in and out of negative climate length temperature trends as I noted above with climate length periods of cooling.
Right now with next month marking 5 years of a new cooling trend. . . .we will have to wait and see if this one also reaches 17 years or not.
We haven’t had a super La Nina in over 35 years while we have had 3 super El Ninos. Perhaps that’s the legacy of the solar grand maximum.
bdgwx says:
John/Bill, can you provide rationale for why computing a trend from 2 data points is better than computing it from ALL data points?
————————-
Sure thing bdgwx. Two data points is cruder for computing a trend but two data points taken from extremes is interesting in a lot of ways.
First and foremost. It can show an optimum range of over the data to compute using all the data between the two points. . . .an extremely important issue when computing trends constantly being violated by those with agendas.
Second. Such an approach could provide a superior result if variation is coming from multiple causes not dependent upon each other as out of place mini peaks elsewhere in the data could negatively affect the accuracy of a continued trend.
So the lesson here is using beginning and end points that make sense for an all data computed trend and if you can understand how the intermediary data might be influenced then the point to point trend might be a better measure.
Finally trend estimation when you don’t really know what is going on is the rap that science lays on the star gazers. Here in climate there is probably more ego about knowing what is going on than actual facts. Meaning of course and sadly true there does not seem to be a clear separation between those with science degrees and star gazers with their own computers.
Scientists can’t even agree on whether there was a MWP or LIA. Its a huge mess! We know warming is going on but the star gazers know that too.
Our own Benjamin Franklin was a star gazing climate forecaster. Two farmers almanacs have had successful 2 century business runs on the same concept. What have climate modelers done for us lately?
Bill, again, you’re just cherry picking — choosing time intervals that give you the result you want. It’s not science.
30-year trends have a much better chance of eliminating natural factors, which over that time usually approximately amount to zero. Choose 60 years if you want to get a full cycle of the AMO and PDO.
But your picking relatively short time intervals and picking certain end dates is just doing numerology.
BH wrote:
“Really indeed not much going on at all. Ever since Dr Santer did his statistical fingerprint study on 17 years of warming ending in 1997, practically nothing has happened.”
According to “NOAH,” the surface has warmed 0.37 +/- 0.06 C in the last 17 years.
Arctic sea ice has decreased. Greenland ice has decreased. Antarctic sea ice has decreased. The ocean has risen and acidified.
That’s not “practically nothing.”
David Appell says: Bill, again, youre just cherry picking choosing time intervals that give you the result you want. Its not science.
30-year trends have a much better chance of eliminating natural factors, which over that time usually approximately amount to zero. Choose 60 years if you want to get a full cycle of the AMO and PDO.
But your picking relatively short time intervals and picking certain end dates is just doing numerology.
======================
David you just stuck on stupid. 30 year trends give you nothing more than 30 year trends. They are only meaningful if you know what influences those trends.
One way of accomplishing that is using the method used by John and pick a period where natural effects can be assumed to be roughly the same. I would suggest a minimum of 80 years to dump out ocean oscillations. You can dump out shortterm ENSO peaks by using the 33 years between ENSO peaks in 1983 and 2016.
And you can go short term between the 1998 and 2016 event to get a 17 year indication (argued strenuously by Ben Santer as an adequate climate period of time) to detect changes in the long term warming rate, which John’s method clearly shows a lot of warming in the early part and barely nothing in the second half. All this blindly adopting static standards completely blind to natural variation isn’t smart at all as all it tells you is the sum of all variables over a time period with zero thought put into it in an attempt to isolate known variables like ENSO. Even picking 80 years to go after the natural variability that climate models can’t explain still falls short of dealing with variables that resulted in the MWP and LIA.
You clearly are not able to understand this. 13 year trends, 17 year trends, 80 years, just dropping out El Ninos and La Ninas…you doing numerology, not science. And it’s very boring to boot.
David, please stop trolling.
Sorry David. I should try harder to keep it at the 3rd grade level so you can keep up.
The last dip almost touched the 0 line , the next one will cross it
Global cooling is always JUUUUUST around the corner, isn’t it?
David, solar junkies are still waiting for the nino noise to get out of the way so’s we can see if anything will happen with a cooler sun. So, in that sense, it’s reasonable to be thinking that cooling could be just around the corner. (too bad for salvatore that he ran out of decade to see it)…
I’ll wait for the AMO to go negative to make my judgment as to if man is actually warming the global climate. In the meantime there is no crisis and there has been no “Tipping Point” leading to a “Death Spiral”. Warm is good! Cold is bad!
DA,
The planet is 4 billion years old. I know you probably think 20 or 200 years is a long time but stop hyperventilating and show a little perspective.
Both the sun and the AMO are natural factors. Short-term changes due to natural factors say nothing about anthropogenic warming.
Also, you’re going to have to explain your acceleration calculations. How can randomness be accelerating?
Who/what says it’s randomness? There is a statistically significant trend.
David, please stop trolling.
But the baseline will move up in 2021, when the current 1981-2010 30-year average reference is replaced with 1991-2020.
JT
If you think changing the baseline will somehow change the decadal rate, let alone the decadal acceleration, then your understanding of mathematics must be rather poor.
And how do you know they will change the baseline? And if they do, why not 1981-2010?
And how do you know they will change the baseline? And if they do, why not 1981-2010?
Here’s a hint Midas:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/
Doesn’t definitively say he’d do it again (but, that would be a pretty good guess)…
Midas,
The baseline currently is 1981-2010. Climatic SOP would be to move it to the most recent 30-year average.
I said nothing about changing the rate of apparent warming. My response was in reply to how the graph would look with a raised baseline, the new average being for 1991-2020.
The graph will look exactly the same, except for a scale change on the y-axis that will not affect the trend or amount of warming.
David,
True, but the graph will look different, since there will be more blue below the line and less red above it in graphs which depict data that way.
Coolism must represent the most desperate end of the denial spectrum. The latest temp is above the long term trendline and even the running 13 month average is clearly climbing. But, but the sun, what about the sun?
L,
What about the sun, dummy? Do tell me.
Cheers.
midas…”If you think changing the baseline will somehow change the decadal rate”
What decadal rate? Do you mean the zero rate from 1998 – 2015?
Out of curiosity, how do you fit a 17 year flat trend into a 0.12C/decade trend?
MF,
And then there’s the molten core too huh?
Lets hear you explain that one, dim bulb. Do tell.
Jeers, lol
John, again: the appearance of the graph is an arbitrary choice — it will not affect trends or the amount of warming.
Don’t be fooled by how a graph looks.
I would like to see UAH (and everyone) pick a baseline and stick with it. Perhaps they’re trying to make the monthly numbers look smaller. How about 1979-2008?
David Appell says:
I would like to see UAH (and everyone) pick a baseline and stick with it. Perhaps theyre trying to make the monthly numbers look smaller. How about 1979-2008?
————————-
Actually David the 30 year period was selected for the purpose of detecting changes in the rate of warming. If you don’t want to do that then pick the entire trend over the entire thermometer record.
But John offers a more thoughtful approach than changing the base period at the beginning of each decade. Instead calculate series of trends over more relevant time frames to avoid the inevitable dips and humps that come from shorter period temporary climate change. Climate change really hasn’t been well described, mostly its been described in bright yellow. The yellow being yellow journalism.
Climate change is now 1.0 deg C, and it’s going to be at least 2 C.
Recall that the difference between the last glacial maximum 23,000 yrs ago and the Holocene was only 5 C.
So we are indeed making changes on a geological scale, and much faster than nature did it before. 0.2 C/decade (surface) is enormously fast in historical terms.
David Appell says:
Recall that the difference between the last glacial maximum 23,000 yrs ago and the Holocene was only 5 C.
—————
the only thing I recall was it was estimated at 9 C a few years ago until alarmists went hunting for something else to worry about after running out of polar bears and the West Side highway outside of James Hansen’s office still well about sea level.
Memories are fallible. Show me the data or the research.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says:
September 5, 2019 at 10:54 PM
Memories are fallible. Show me the data or the research.
————————————
Sources of 9C diff.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/climate-qa/whats-difference-between-global-warming-and-climate-change
and
https://tinyurl.com/y5slxxk7
The linear rate of warming throughout the UAH record since 1979 has been virtually constant at ~0.125C/dec. — so far:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/to:1989/trend/plot/uah6/to:1999/trend/plot/uah6/to:2009/trend/plot/uah6/trend
chris…”The linear rate of warming throughout the UAH record since 1979 has been virtually constant at ~0.125C/dec. so far:”
The first 18 years was a recovery from cooling. That was followed by a 15 year flat trend.
Gord,
UAH has been around for 40 years. Your reply of 18 yrs + 15 yrs = 33 yrs. So you’re missing the last 7 years, wonder why?
Any explanation for them?
I didn’t think so.
Gordon Robertson says:
The first 18 years was a recovery from cooling. That was followed by a 15 year flat trend.
Gordon is manipulating the time intervals to give the results he wants.
David you sound like a teacher praising his prized student considering your history with such stuff.
Don’t make accusations without supporting them.
David, please stop trolling.
Have we agreed on how much coldness would be just perfect and dandy?
Or are we still on “Warming, bad”?
We are on “adaptation is difficult and expensive with inevitable losses in life and property,” especially with a warming rate far above climatological and geological norms.
The last part of your reply is simply false, no more than a baseless assertion with much evidence to disprove it.
The first part, I will take as a “yes”.
After the last glacial maximum 23 kyrs ago, the world warmed by about 5 C (surface, globally) in about 12,000 yrs.
That’s an average rate of 0.004 C/decade.
The surface is now warming at 0.2 C/decade, about 50 times faster.
David Appell says:
After the last glacial maximum 23 kyrs ago, the world warmed by about 5 C (surface, globally) in about 12,000 yrs.
Thats an average rate of 0.004 C/decade.
The surface is now warming at 0.2 C/decade, about 50 times faster.
==========================
Hmmm, was that warming linear David? Heck we aren’t even in agreement that such warming lasted more than a few years. UAH has .12C warming per decade 33 year ENSO peak to ENSO peak, disregarding other natural variability like ocean oscillations and LIA recovery.
.2 degree warming for a few decades doesn’t move us out of the noise range of the icecore data.
Did you see where I wrote “average rate?”
Calculating trends from two data points, one ENSO peak to another, is moronic.
David, please stop trolling.
D. Clueless Apple blathered:
” … with a warming rate far above climatological and geological norms.”
With a claimed warming of about +1 degree C. since 1880,ignoring the non-global measurements before 1979, the average temperature of this planet has been unusually stable in those 139 years.
You remain clueless, Apple, unable to observe the climate around you, assuming you ever go outside, and see that it is the best climate for humans, and animals, and gradually getting better than it had been for plants, as CO2 levels rise, in the history of our planet.
The “coming climate change catastrophe” remains a fairy tale in the overactive imaginations of always angry and scared leftists, like yourself — a fairy tale that has been told every year since the mid-1970s, like a scary campfire story … followed by smarmy, devious leftists demanding that everyone must do as they say, without question … even if they are wrong !.
Linear trend lines are meaningless and deceptive for non linear temperature data.
Trend lines are for science illeterates who want to extrapolate the trends as if a trend MUST continue (or get steeper, as you leftists have been bellowing for over 30 years.)
Linear trend lines without stating REASONABLE margins of error are even worse.
Mr. Appeal to Authority Apple, you might want to take a few basic science classes.
You live in a the leftist world of trend lines, tenths of a degree temperature anomalies (hundredths of a degree for year to year comparisons), repeated appeals to authority, and always wrong computer game predictions of the future climate, typically predicting 2x to 3x the warming that actually happens, yet the same predictions are made every year.
Intelligent people point out that always wrong, wild guess predictions of the future climate are not real science — they are climate astrology .
You are a climate astrologer, Apple, always confident that if a scientist makes a wild guess of the future climate, it gets published, and you like what he says, then he MUST be right !
Lots of CO2 added to the air since 1950. The climate is wonderful (except the US has the coldest January through August on record this year***). And you are a gullible old socialist fool.
Have a Nice Day!
http://elonionbloggle.blogspot.com/
GreeneWithEnvy: Trend lines estimate the change in some quantity. Everyone knows not to extrapolate them into the future unless the background conditions cause the trend remain the same.
D. Clueless Apple blathers:
“This brings the LT anomalys acceleration up to 0.011 C/decade^2”
Is that one hundredth of a degree C. Applleman?
No one cares about hundredths of a degree.
Except you.
Dr. Spencer, now that you are on the mend, I hope that you would take the time to reply to my post from last month:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2019-0-38-deg-c/#comment-370152
Bad backs are no fun, I’ve been dealing with a back injury since 1973.
I’m sorry, but you are not as important as you think you are.
Hello Dr. Spencer,
Nice to see you are recovering from your recent back surgery. Thank you for getting back to work and sharing your global temperature measurements with us.
I have a question about the El Ninos. These seem to be a major factor in our multidecadal warming phase we are currently in. Have there been any climate studies about El Nino events that occurred in the early 20th Century? I would think that the El Ninos back in the 1920’s, 30’s, and 40s were just as strong as our 1998 and 2016 events.
The Arctic ice had melted down in both extent and thickness during the early/mid 20th Century. But we did not have the precise measurements back then like we do now. And because of that, our climate alarmists have downplayed the early 20th Century warming event, and are claiming that what is happening now in the Arctic is by far worse, and more dire that what occurred before.
Anybody have any thoughts on this?
Rob, see this:
https://judithcurry.com/2019/09/01/enso-predictions-based-on-solar-activity/
The end of Little Ice Age is marked by the beginning of rapid retreat of Temperate Zone glaciers. Or the end of LIA is commonly and widely accepted as occurring in 1850 AD.
There is also a general idea that there is about 50 years lag of glacial retreat response to global warming. I would guess this is due a glacial colder temperature takes a while to warm up.
In terms of last thousand year, I would say the most significant global climatic was the growth of Temperate zone glacial and the subsequent rapid retreat. Though the temperate zone glacial growth of Little Ice Age is partially remaining up to the present time.
I tend to think that something caused the cooling which caused the Little Ice Age, and whatever that was, stopped occuring and the result being a return to warmer global temperature. But not a lot different than idea something caused the warming and this ended the Little Ice Age.
“Abrupt onset of the Little Ice Age triggered by volcanism and sustained by sea-ice/ocean feedbacks,” Gifford H. Miller et al, GRL (2013).
DOI: 10.1029/2011GL050168
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL050168/full
David, please stop trolling.
Rob Mitchell says:
The Arctic ice had melted down in both extent and thickness during the early/mid 20th Century
False. For 20th century Arctic sea ice extent, see Figure 2a here:
“History of sea ice in the Arctic,” Leonid Polyak et al, Quaternary Science Reviews 29 (2010) 17571778.
http://research.bpcrc.osu.edu/geo/publications/polyak_etal_seaice_QSR_10.pdf
David Appell says: False
==========================
Not false David. You need to take a primer in how to read graphs.
Kinnard et.al., 2008 the graph for which is in the Polyak compilation shows a distinct loss of sea ice extent from 1880 to around 1940 of about a million and half sqkm. Since recent arctic melting has take about another million and half sqkm off the 1940 low. . . .essentially mirroring, upside down, the global warming trends over that period of time.
Likewise since 2007 ice extent loss has been minimal mirroring the current pause in temperatures. . . .at least as shown by UAH.
Beyond a solar grand maximum its pretty hard to find any ice melt from CO2 considering it should be about 10 times faster in the latter period if you were right. But you are wrong so often, like here misreading the graph and declaring it false that “Arctic ice had melted down in both extent and thickness during the early/mid 20th Century”.
Imagine that! You gave a very good source too. But apparently you don’t have clue one what the source is showing.
All this makes sense with the open navigation of the NW and NE passages in the 1930’s and 40’s closing in subsequent decades and really not opening again until the naughts. However, ice volume from the LIA probably never recovered post 1940 making for larger ice losses this time around.
Is cooling right around the corner? Heck you probably would love for somebody to start making predictions considering how badly your predictions have tanked. I sure would if I were you.
But I learned patience in dealing with such matters beyond anybody’s control. It always seems to take longer than you would want it to take. My advice is to avoid getting into the prediction business until you have a clue about what you are talking about.
We may not be out of the woods on the solar grand max. Triplets of low solar cycles have been rather regular once a century. We may have another century of solar grand max still to come.
Perhaps someday folks will be able to predict climate change but not today. . . .yet. In the meantime David, practice reading graphs especially if you want to use them in an argument.
Bill,
“It always seems to take longer…”
I wonder sometimes about lag. The sun heats the oceans, but if the input heat becomes more or less than previously, how long before that change affects the oceans enough to affect the atmosphere?
A large volcano will affect temperatures almost immediately, but the normal spring/fall/summer/winter cycle is about 2 months behind. ie the longest day of the year is June 21 but that is considered the first day of summer, which lasts until the end of August.
But the oceans mix some of the heat, not giving it up immediately,
Thus lag.
How much lag?
Lewis guignard says:Thus lag.
How much lag?
—————————-
You are asking the $1,000,000 question. One can only hypothesize. If say we look at the ice core records and see a 2 degreeC variance every few hundred years (handwaved away by alarmists as noise), and we see a total recovery of maybe 2 degreeC so far from 1700 (not many thermometers so rather uncertain from a global standpoint), it seems about as clear the first degree may have come in the first few decades of the 18th century. . . .since then its been long delayed combined changes in ice and oceans providing the second degree over a period of 260 years.
There is some pretty good science on surface oceans (above the thermocline) which is all of about 5% of the ocean. Say a decade or so for atmosphere and the surface ocean to adjust. then the science investigation for the deeper ocean is totally blocked by an almost complete absence of data.
Only in the last couple of decades do we have data being collected down to the mid ocean depth.
Bottom line the deep oceans are cold despite residing between two layers of heated toast, thus they need a huge source of heat loss to maintain that temperature. The only two sources of that cold has to be the phase changes of water and the cold brines being squeezed out of evaporating and freezing water.
There is more evaporation going on than freezing, but evaporation may not be as variable as freezing. Almost all of the heat from the sun retained by the climate system is held in the oceans. The oceans are clearly by far the big dog in the climate game and not understanding them leaves little chance of getting anything right. The idea of CO2 being the control knob of climate is the only theory that wouldn’t be instantly tossed out because of a lack of knowledge of the climate system. Problem is its never been demonstrated that what gets absorbed throughout the atmosphere has to end up as forcing on the surface. Its not an irrational idea its just that there is little evidence to suggest its true. Its a concept like well the sun sets in the west rises in the east. . . .ergo the sun circles around the earth.
BH wrote:
Problem is its never been demonstrated that what gets absorbed throughout the atmosphere has to end up as forcing on the surface.
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect, R. Philipona et al, Geo Res Letters, v31 L03202 (2004).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract
“Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010,” D. R. Feldman et al, Nature 519, 339343 (19 March 2015).
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v519/n7543/full/nature14240.html
David Appell says:
Radiative forcing measured at Earths surface corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect,
——————–
LOL! And when you were five years old and you got up and saw the cookie on the mantle had been eaten that proved Santa Claus existed right?
Bill, this is why you’re a first class denier — you ask for evidence, and then when you get it you immediately ignore it and try to make a joke and dismiss it instead of reading the paper and see what they did and what they found.
You don’t want evidence or proof. For some reason, having nothing to do with science, you want to deny the science without even trying to understand it. Your little jokes cover up what even you realize is an obvious and awkward response.
So what’s that reason?
David Appell says:
Bill, this is why youre a first class denier you ask for evidence, and then when you get it you immediately ignore it and try to make a joke and dismiss it instead of reading the paper and see what they did and what they found.
You dont want evidence or proof. For some reason, having nothing to do with science, you want to deny the science without even trying to understand it. Your little jokes cover up what even you realize is an obvious and awkward response.
So whats that reason?
===============================
So far what have you offered? A warming trend. . . .thats it. I fully expect a warming trend to not just warm the ground I am standing on but to also warm the air over my head. Obviously you don’t get it.
Even most scientists out there working on the greenhouse effect, even most of those believing CO2 could create dangerous warming get that a 10 or 17 year warming trend isn’t sufficient evidence of the effects of CO2. So what would a moron do that can’t fathom the difficulty of the issue? Well he might actually go out into the world conduct an experiment, discover some short term atmospheric warming and declare CO2 as the cause of it. Great fodder for the morons of the world to gobble up like starved turkeys.
You should really try to understand what Dr. Akasofu has to say on this very point. You have to understand natural climate variation in order to understand anthropogenic climate change.
If you don’t understand the former you have zero chance of understanding the latter.
The cookie argument for Santa Claus is a simple analogy of exactly what the problem is. The grandfather of global warming, Dr. Roger Revelle was a true scientist in the vein of Dr. Richard Feynman. He understood the science problem but that doesn’t mean he wasn’t concerned because clearly he had seen the way through to the possibility. Dr. Revelle would as would any true scientist committed to the ideals of the scientific method would say that its not certain who ate the cookie.
You though gooble up the SkS version of all this like a monkey in a banana plantation.
I have a great deal of experience in the area of computer modeling of uncertain phenomena. I also completely understand why climate modeling is being funded. You don’t.
The answer is climate modeling is being funded precisely because those pushing for its funding want it as post-deal due diligence.
What is post deal due diligence? Post deal due diligence is the work one does to justify following the intuition of someone entrusted as an agent to make deals for another. Usually that’s a fiduciary of some sort.
But here in the world of climate modeling the climate modeling purpose has been flipped on its head and being used as a science argument for empowering the deal maker. And the deal maker has zero history of making good decisions.
Think about that.
This relationship has a long and sordid history that reaches back through Popes all the way to Tribal Chiefs colluding with the Tribe’s witch doctor to keep the natives in line.
My proposal is this and it stands across many areas of public policy. Tried and true science, not post-deal due diligence (as recognized as a defense for fiduciary decision making) – more officially known in political science as post normal science.
A failure to distinguish between Dr. Feynman science and post-normal science is the curse suffered by voluntary slaves.
An understanding of the use of post normal science as a deal maker, is the fodder upon which Kings and Aristocrats thrive.
There is a fine distinction there that was well understood by the greats of the science revolution and heartily talked and lectured upon by Dr. Richard Feynman and fully embraced even by the acknowledged Grandfather of Global Warming, Dr. Roger Revelle.
And its all beyond you.
You wrote earlier
Problem is its never been demonstrated that what gets absorbed throughout the atmosphere has to end up as forcing on the surface.
I gave you two papers that showed EXACTLY that, and you laughed them off and now you’re changing the subject and writing about anything BUT those papers.
Bill, can you read scientific papers?
Do you have the necessary background?
Can you read the Feldman paper and make sense of it?
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says:
September 6, 2019 at 3:08 PM
You wrote earlier
Problem is its never been demonstrated that what gets absorbed throughout the atmosphere has to end up as forcing on the surface.
I gave you two papers that showed EXACTLY that, and you laughed them off and now youre changing the subject and writing about anything BUT those papers.
Bill, can you read scientific papers?
Do you have the necessary background?
Can you read the Feldman paper and make sense of it?
————————–
David, you sent me two papers that showed the sky was getting warmer. The question really is do you have any idea what you are looking at? Do these papers tell you that the sky is getting warmer because of CO2? Where is the control subject? Where is the section they clearly implicate CO2 as the reason the sky is getting warmer? Do you have clue one on how the scientific method works? If so then point these sections of the paper out as I don’t see them. If you don’t do that immediately the only thing that will be abundantly clear is you don’t have the facilities to make any sense of it.
bill hunter says:
Kinnard et.al., 2008 the graph for which is in the Polyak compilation shows a distinct loss of sea ice extent from 1880 to around 1940 of about a million and half sqkm.
I only see a 0.5 Mkm2 drop in the minimal graph (Fig 2a, purple) for 1880-1940, in the spline fit, not the annual variations.
Where’s the other Mkm2?
You are looking at trend lines I am looking at the proxy data.
The trend line is strongly influenced by what came after the low point in the mid 1940’s.
Patch a similar recovery to the data post end of the series and the trend line would lift up significantly as well. One should not mistake trend lines for actual fluctuations, the idea of trend lines is eliminate short term fluctuations. Kinnard a well known odd proxy using hockey stick maker might be the best science available but lets not start reading stuff into trend lines.
So your argument is that it’s unfair for the trendline to be influenced by a low ice period.
And if you just add data wherever you want you can make the trendline come back up.
And you think that’s a serious rational argument???
David Appell says:
So your argument is that its unfair for the trendline to be influenced by a low ice period.
And if you just add data wherever you want you can make the trendline come back up.
And you think thats a serious rational argument???
———————————-
No thats not my argument David.
Graph states:
———(a) Maximal (winter) and minimal (summer) Arctic sea-ice extent time series, 18702003 (from Kinnard et al., 2008). Smooth lines are robust spline functions that highlight low-frequency changes. Vertical dotted lines separate the three periods for which data sources changed fundamentally: earliest, 18701952, observations of differing accuracy and availability;
I think its up to you to make an argument for why you would use a spline function designed to highlight low frequency data rather than the actual data. Very clearly the actual data shows a loss of a 1.5mmkm in the early 20th century and the present coming out another 1.5mmkm lower than that. Further the author acknowledges the data is of differing accuracy in this period so why would one want to process it more other than to make the modern melting look bigger? That volley is right down the middle of the court lets see what you can do with it.
BH:
I think its up to you to make an argument for why you would use a spline function designed to highlight low frequency data rather than the actual data.
To get rid of the noise that invariably accompanies climate observations.
So you’re not fooled by a downward spike in 1940, as you were.
Check it out in this 2019 study.
https://www.washington.edu/news/2019/08/08/more-than-100-years-of-arctic-sea-ice-volume-reconstructed-with-help-from-historic-ships-logbooks/
Another spike here
https://cires.colorado.edu/news/reconstructing-arctic-history
and the spike is here also
https://tinyurl.com/y69z2xq8
The graphic from Bill’s first link shows an 1880 to 1940 dip not as profound or steep as recently.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/uw-s3-cdn/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/08/07093823/Fig13.jpeg
Also, Bill seems not to realize he has shown us a volume chart, rather than extent (coverage), which is what he and David have been talking about).
Bill’s first link leads back to a study which states:
“The consolidated database shows that there is no precedent as far back as 1850 for the 21st century’s minimum ice extent of sea ice on the pan‐Arctic scale”
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2016.12195.x
The 3rd link is background material and data for the above study.
barry says: – The graphic from Bills first link shows an 1880 to 1940 dip not as profound or steep as recently.
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/uw-s3-cdn/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2019/08/07093823/Fig13.jpeg
Also, Bill seems not to realize he has shown us a volume chart, rather than extent (coverage), which is what he and David have been talking about).
Bills first link leads back to a study which states:
The consolidated database shows that there is no precedent as far back as 1850 for the 21st centurys minimum ice extent of sea ice on the pan‐Arctic scale
——————–
STRAWMAN!!! Where do you guys get off any claim from me that there was zero additional melt from the 1940’s?
And ice volume is going to affect extent loss because it can take a good deal of time for thick ice about the arctic circle to melt away depending upon what latitude it is. Thin ice is known to be far more vulnerable to melt. So the story of the arctic pretty goes like extremely thick ice coming out of the LIA. I realize paintings can be exaggerated but a lot of the panaramas of the 19th century shows startling thick ice mounting up to dozens of meters. A lot melted in the 30’s and 40’s documented well in the logs of traders and wartime patrols. The NE passage was first opened by the Soviets in 1935. It didn’t stay open. Neither did the NW passage. Neither did the Norwegian Sea. But it seems highly unlikely the ice got anywhere near as thick as it was at the end of the LIA. I stated above that Kinnard shows a 1.5mmkm loss of ice in the early 20th century, then a recovery, then around 1980 started to melt back. I have little doubt its cutting through thinner ice though and I can agree with Kinnard that it possibly dropped another 1.5mmkm below the mid 20th century low. But I am just going to believe it too much. I am not going to bet the farm on it.
Extent and volume are not the same, and you should make it clear when you are changing the metric. I don’t think you realized it.
“STRAWMAN!!! Where do you guys get off any claim from me that there was zero additional melt from the 1940s?”
Did I say you said that?
And this is about rate of retreat as well as coverage. As it says in the same abstract of the study cited in the article you linked.
“The rate of retreat since the 1990s is also unprecedented”
Ref other work: it’s easy enough to get the original Kinnard 2008 paper: A changing Arctic seasonal ice zone observations from 18702003 and possible oceanographic consequences. [link]
Quoting: “The maximum extent was relatively stable until the early 1960s, after which a gradual decline is observed. The minimum extent is more variable on inter‐annual to decadal timescales. A declining trend, more pronounced than that of the maximum extent, is apparent after the early 1950s, with a rate increase over the last decade or so….
This recent increase rate matches model predictions for “worst case” type greenhouse gases emission scenarios.”
“Kinnard et.al., 2008 the graph for which is in the Polyak compilation shows a distinct loss of sea ice extent from 1880 to around 1940 of about a million and half sqkm….
I can agree with Kinnard that it possibly dropped another 1.5mmkm below the mid 20th century low. But I am just going to believe it too much.”
You have more faith in the 1880 to 1940 data, but less in the 20th century data?
Kinnard makes clear that the pre 1950 data is less accurate than that for the last 4 decades.
“Vertical dotted lines separate the three periods for which data sources changed fundamentally: (1) 18701952: observations of varying accuracy/availability; (2) 19531971: generally accurate hemispheric observations; (3) 19722003: satellite period ‐ best accuracy and coverage.”
A distinct drop from 1880 to 1940? Distinct, huh? But that satellite data – a bit iffy, eh?
barry says:
You have more faith in the 1880 to 1940 data, but less in the 20th century data?
========================
You folks gobbling down the official sanctioned fodder are indeed linear thinkers. No Barry!! Exactly the opposite!! But good of you to recognize the uncertainty in the data acknowledged not just by Kinnard but liberally by Polyak as well. David and Nate can bring themselves to do that because it might conceded something.
barry says:
A distinct drop from 1880 to 1940? Distinct, huh? But that satellite data – a bit iffy, eh?
======================
Linear thinking Barry! Go back and read what I said and tell me how that has to be consistent with doubt about modern satellite data. . . .sheesh!
I’ve already quoted, you, Bill, further upthread where you talk about “distinct” drops from 1880 to 1940.
You again on that “distinct” data: “Very clearly the actual data shows a loss of a 1.5mmkm in the early 20th century”
In this post you qualify:
“Further the author acknowledges the data is of differing accuracy in this period so why would one want to process it more other than to make the modern melting look bigger?”
“Differing accuracy?” Why not just speak the truth plainly – “less accurate in the earlier period.”
To answer the question you put to David, the low frequency change is going to be more accurate than the annual fluctuations because of the processing. The spline fit would have better fidelity with more accurate annual data, of course, but a calculation of rate based on numerous data points is going to be more conservative (in both magnitude and error) than drawing a straight line between two years. (The point of a linear regression, for example, is to reduce the mean squared error.)
Nowhere in your posts just here do you clearly say, “the pre-1950s data is of greater uncertainty than that for the latter period. You just say that they are “different,” and bang on about “clear” and “distinct” changes in the early 20th century data. Hence my challenge.
Thanks for clarifying that you know the early 20th century data is less accurate than more recent. With that in mind, how does it affect your original point?
barry says:
To answer the question you put to David, the low frequency change is going to be more accurate than the annual fluctuations because of the processing.
Thanks for clarifying that you know the early 20th century data is less accurate than more recent. With that in mind, how does it affect your original point?
===========================
I agree that the low frequency approach likely has less error but its an inappropriate filter for comparing the 1930’s and 40’s to the 2000’s and 2010’s because all these kinds of filters need beginning and ending padding making the ends incomparable to anything.
barry says:
You keep asking me to persuade you about something I have no interest in. Did I say MEI did a better job? Nope. Do I prefer MEI? Nope. And Ive said so. So why keep bothering me with this? Im not Bindidon go ask him.
So you are alone in thinking that the 2015/16 el Nino brought record rains to California, ending the drought. Everyone else and I mean every researcher looking at it recognized a surprising lack of rainfall associated with that event.
Bill Hunter is right and theyre all wrong, huh? Wow.
======================
Well that could be because all the papers you linked to on the rains were written before the rains came. Scientists were falling all over themselves trying to get relevant papers on California rainfall done considering California’s $50+ billion agriculture was in a major drought and the state is mulling over spending billions on more water infrastructure.
But you jumped in on a thread of MEI and diverted it without ever saying why. Now that its clear you are off topic I guess we are done with this, unless of course your lineal thinking forms a brickwall regarding the ONI’s relevance to California because it doesn’t operate in a perfectly linear manner. I really can’t help you with that but maybe you ought to go off and join a blog that talks about say nuclear bombs or something a bit more linear like that.
It’s amusingly ironic that you posted the last one in the wrong thread. “Off topic” indeed.
“I agree that the low frequency approach likely has less error but its an inappropriate filter for comparing the 1930s and 40s to the 2000s and 2010s because all these kinds of filters need beginning and ending padding making the ends incomparable to anything.”
What kind of ‘filter’ would you use in preference to a spline fit?
How would you reduce the error to estimate the trend for the period you nominated, so as to compare it with more recent trends?
I’m not sure about your criticism of the ends – a spline fit is not a windowed smooth, where a section of the data is averaged and applied to the central point. This is problematic when the window overshoots each end of the time series, but spline fits don’t have this problem, as they only deal with the data that is there.
So how would you improve on the technique of drawing a line between two data points of questionable quality to determine how much sea ice cover changed in the early 20th century?
barry, please stop trolling.
Bill H., thank you for the comprehensive reply to David A’s declaration that the early/mid 20th Century Arctic ice decline was nothing like the current one. Without satellites, there really is no way to precisely measure what extent and thickness there was back then. But there have been numerous newspaper articles written about it back then. And, the USS Skate punched through the Arctic ice at the North Pole. In fact, there was an open water area there on 11 August 1958. If there was open water at the North Pole in 1958, that should tell you that the Arctic ice thickness had thinned down considerably for the Skate to surface. Google USS Skate 1958. Very interesting reading!
I’ve always noticed global warming alarmists do all they can to diminish the past. And try to make the case that what is happening now is extraordinary. What is extraordinary is based on the scale you use to determine the significance of some anomaly. Dr. Lindzen took note of this with global mean temperature anomaly, and how it is figured out.
So you admit there were no measurements, decline to read the papers I’ve cited, then conclude, based on no measurements whatsoever, that ice was thinner around 1958.
Not scientific.
I am privy to secret lore from the good deal book from the bus, that the ice was a bitch circa 1958.
David Appell says:
So you admit there were no measurements, decline to read the papers Ive cited, then conclude, based on no measurements whatsoever, that ice was thinner around 1958.
Not scientific.
======================
LOL! The best science in the world is a pair of eyes. Seems all the vessels and all the eyes see one thing and Kinnard essentially distilling tealeaves in the bottom of teacup sees something else.
That doesn’t mean Kinnard is wrong, what it means is “science” is a super broad category of observations and experimentation.
You though seem to believe it is whatever your daddy tells you it is.
Where there comprehensive observations in the 1940s and 1950s? Measurements with meter sticks and surveying equipment on a huge frigid wilderness? Simultaneous measurements all around the ice sheet? If a plane was flying scientists in the southwestern ice field, was there another flying at the same time in the northeastern field? The length of the Arctic Circle is 10,000 miles. Were there enough planes to closely mark the extent of the ice all around?
bobdroege says:
“that the ice was a bitch circa 1958.”
Yeah, I think Gordon read a book about some intrepid explorer that went to the North Pole on skis around that time, which proved that warming can not affect the ice up there.
Isn’t that right Gordon?
David, Svante, please stop trolling.
Rob Mitchell says:
Without satellites, there really is no way to precisely measure what extent and thickness there was back then.
Then why are you making assertions about the ice back then?
David Appell says:
Rob Mitchell says:
Without satellites, there really is no way to precisely measure what extent and thickness there was back then.
Then why are you making assertions about the ice back then?
=========================
Sheesh David! You don’t need data to make an observation that there are observation problems and a lot of uncertainty. What kind of moronic idea are you peddling here? Fact is from shipboard its impossible to measure ice extent like its measured today. 15% ice extent is not even close to be being navigable to any real extent and almost all ship borne ice edge observations are observations made while avoiding getting into the ice and dealing with the navigation issues there.
What we know is from the extremely limited efforts to actually get through the ice and the rest is distilling tea leaves.
So since there was no way to measure ice extent back then, Rob’s claims are meaningless.
David Appell says:
So since there was no way to measure ice extent back then, Robs claims are meaningless.
———————–
Nope Rob’s claims are in regards to the weakness of the data, you live and will probably die by it.
The questions is precisely: “is the current warming unprecedented and dangerous”;
If the data doesn’t support #1 there is nothing to be concerned about. Rob is just pointing out that observers like Larsen, the German and Russian Navies, the shippers in the Norwegian Sea all agree to low ice extent. Is that conclusive? No way! To compare to present you need better sampling.
So enter stage right the seers, palm readers, tea leaf readers, tree ring counters, salt readers, and a thousand others. If you actually read Polyak, I have, you will get a flavor of how many holes exist in the data. Polyak’s objective was not to create the ice bible, his objective was to compile available information, discuss their shortcomings and generally provide a picture of the issues regarding the history of ice in the Arctic.
One cannot appreciate what he has done if you don’t read it and instead just extract the 15second soundbite summary off SkS.
There is some great stuff in that paper. Everybody interested in the Arctic should read every word.
How were 1950s scientists able to get a comprehensive, all-at-one-time measurement of the sea ice? What were they using, meter sticks? Surveying equipment? Airplanes?
Polyak compiled his data into figures like 2a. It doesn’t show what Rob claimed. Neither did any of the other studies I cited.
David, please stop trolling.
Beyond a solar grand maximum its pretty hard to find any ice melt from CO2 considering it should be about 10 times faster in the latter period if you were right.
Why 10 times faster?
like because CO2 emissions are an order of magnitude higher now than a century ago.
So how does today’s melt rate compared to that of a hundred years ago?
Is natural climate change the only remaining option?
‘Kinnard et.al., 2008 the graph for which is in the Polyak compilation shows a distinct loss of sea ice extent from 1880 to around 1940 of about a million and half sqkm. Since recent arctic melting has take about another million and half sqkm off the 1940 low. . . .essentially mirroring, upside down, the global warming trends over that period of time.’
Bill, you are expertly fitting noise again, to fit your narrative.
There is a downward spike 1940 that you would like people to pay attention to, but it is simply noise.
Best to look at the fit ‘Smooth lines are robust spline functions that highlight low-frequency changes’.
It clearly shows a drop of ~ 0.5 million sq Km 1870-1960. And a drop of ~ 2.5 million sq km 1960-2000.
There is also a large upward spike just after 1940, back up to 10 Mkm2.
So by Bill’s hand-waving, that’s a change of 0 (zero)(nil)(zilch).
Live by cherry picking, die by cherry picking.
You two morons need to study up on the difference between trend lines, what noise is, and what is actual on the ground. Yes trend lines can eliminate noise but they work equally well eliminating real data.
How do trendlines “eliminate real data?”
David Appell says:
How do trendlines eliminate real data?
———————————————
I said in exactly the same way as they eliminate noise.
Which in your feeble mind probably sounds inconsistent.
The purpose of a trendline is to see through the noise to the signal. It doesn’t eliminate any of the data — they’re all used to calculate the trend and the correlation.
PS: Why do you need to insult me?
Because your mouth runs off like a parrot with zero behind it. You call stuff noise without having a clue what noise is. You are the Handwaver in Chief around here pontificating away while not missing a single political talking point. Shameful behavior on a science blog.
‘You two morons need to study up on the difference between trend lines, what noise is, and what is actual on the ground.’
Bill, as usual you are doubling-down on stupid.
If we are interested in the long term trends in ice cover, we don’t find it by drawing lines from highest one year spikes to lowest one year spikes.
That is simply ignorant.
Nate says:
September 7, 2019 at 6:43 AM
‘You two morons need to study up on the difference between trend lines, what noise is, and what is actual on the ground.’
Bill, as usual you are doubling-down on stupid.
If we are interested in the long term trends in ice cover, we don’t find it by drawing lines from highest one year spikes to lowest one year spikes.
That is simply ignorant.
————————–
Thats why you are a moron Nate, noone I am aware of was talking about trends. I was talking about ice melt, you know the kind that folks establish unprecedented low levels of summer ice with?????
‘I was talking about ice melt’
Ohhh.
I thought we were talking data in a graph and how to properly interpret it.
‘noone I am aware of was talking about trends.’
Except you and all of us.
‘a distinct loss of sea ice extent from 1880 to around 1940 of about a million and half sqkm.’
Then what was statement all about? It seems to be talking about a change ice extent observed over a many decade period.
IOW a long term trend.
And then this:
“essentially mirroring, upside down, the global warming TREND over that period of time.”
Even got the word ‘trend’ in there.
Nate says:
‘I was talking about ice melt’
Ohhh.
I thought we were talking data in a graph and how to properly interpret it.
==========================
All you are saying is you need someone to interpret it for you.
Rob Mitchell
The best is to have a look at the most elaborated ENSO data, the Multivariate ENSO index, whose extended data looks like this:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.ext/ext.ts.jpg
As you can see, there are few competitors to the two major guys (1982/83, 1997/98), the only ones known to have bypassed the 3.0 index (2015/16 had only 2.5).
1877/78 is also very good to see in the Had-CRUT temperature time series which started 1850.
You can’t compare 2015-16 to the figures on this diagram. They come from two different data sets. On the data set that includes 2015-16, the other two also didn’t reach +3.
Midas
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei.old/ts.gif
Bindidon is right in that the 2015/16 el Nino didn’t peak as high as the previous 2 strong el Ninos by the MEI methodology. The new data set has 1982/83 reaching 2.9, 1997/98 reaching 2.5, and 2015/16 only reaching 2.2. They all have the same persistence (13 months) according to MEI.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Bin: just FYI, the MEI data is now on version 2:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/meiv2.data
Bindidon says: Rob Mitchell
The best is to have a look at the most elaborated ENSO data, the Multivariate ENSO index, whose extended data looks like this:
—————————
Not sure why you are making this statement Bindidon.
From strictly an oceanographic perspective the 2015/16 El Nino was the strongest of the three, reaching a peak season of 2.6degC deviation from norm.
The 1998 reached 2.4 and the 1982 reached 2.2.
You are looking at the multivariate index which essentially looks at the atmospheric connection in addition to what is going on with the ocean event. So the MEI is an effort to look at climate affects back in time as ENSO as the driver.
However, while I suspect a connection between ENSO and ice I am not aware that any correlation of that has been discovered. If it has I would love to read about it.
Bill, you are judging the strength of the el Nino on the ONI, which is simply the SST for NINO3.4. Bindidon prefers the MEI because it uses a variety of components to assess ENSO events (5 components in version 2, including pressure difference between Darwin and Tahiti (SOI) and winds etc.
I’m not which preference is better for establishing the effect on global monthly temperature – which is the basis of the interest in ENSO events on this website. No one has ever made a case for it here, though there may be something to that effect in the literature.
barry says:
September 6, 2019 at 10:42 AM
——————–
Yes Barry I generally agree. But it is always interesting how language changes over time. El Nino started as strictly an oceanographic effect and now is morphing into a wider based theory. I observed an astrometeorologist that blew the 2016 ENSO event. I pointed out he was using the identifier word for a fairly well defined effect as something he though he could predict by looking at the stars.
In many respects he was doing what the MEI was doing. Now that ENSO is well identified as a global phenomena my star gazer/mathematician friend failed to predict it because maybe the global effects came out muted. (either that or overridden by yet another climate variable) and that maybe he was simply trying to reach too far.
I just hold to the principle that the more you torture the data they more it confesses to what you want it to confess to.
Its bad enough that much of our monitoring, and in particularly bad, historical monitoring becomes less and less observation data and more and more theoretical data properly tortured and fitted.
As one stated, with four parameters I can fit an elephant, and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.
The problems with what one might call “multivariant” indexes is only the creators of the index really have a clue about how its assembled. For the consumer of data its kind of like giving them a brand new car followed by a quiz on how a gasoline engine works when in truth the purpose of the car was to merely satisfy the consumers need for transporation.
To which one might then ask who is the consumer of the MEI? The consumer of the ONI is fairly well understood. The MEI states:
———An appraisal of the real-time status of ENSO is thus important for a host of climate services that inform societal responses and trigger policy actions for water supply, food security, health, and public safety. ————-
Yet the 2015/16 El Nino created a lot of the most dramatic effects seen. It included “The Blob” and numerous oceanographic effects followed by precipitation effects all not seen in California for over 50 years. The ONI at least was consistent with this.
Yet the MEI downgrades it when the purpose is to inform societal responses. Go figure!
Putting that in the context of this subthread which was about ENSO’s connections to past climate change and in particular arctic ice extent. I was just inquiring if Bindidon had some information about the MEI I was unaware of that pertains to those matters as it sort of sounded like he thought it did.
I don’t think it is about language changes – rather it is to do with increasingly good observations, and discovering that other indicators correlate with ENSO shifts (as well as linking the physics between some of these). The oldest indicator of ENSO changes was the Southern Oscillation pressure difference. Prevailing wind shifts have also been observed for as long as the phenomenon has been known about. With satellites we can glean changes in OLR, and more sub-surface data has helped build better understanding of the range of ENSO effects. The climate debate around ENSO and global temps is incidental to progress on its study.
Well as I pointedly pointed out your mileage is going to vary.
The MEI did not meet their objective for California with the 2015/16 El Nino.
Perhaps they were looking in the wrong place.
“The MEI did not meet their objective for California with the 2015/16 El Nino.”
What do you mean by this? All indices agree that there was a 2015/16 el Nino, and there was surprisingly little rain in California for that event. Why do you single MEI out?
El Ninos have different spatial and temporal characteristics, and the 2015/16 Nino probably had a different character to others that brought rain to California. An index based solely on SSTs isn’t going to help identify these patterns. I suppose that’s why the MEI was built – to try and understand more about different kinds of el Ninos/la Ninas.
While I was re-acquainting myself with the research history, this useful web page came up to summarise a few things rather well.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/why-are-there-so-many-enso-indexes-instead-just-one
Yes Barry I was aware of those issues. However, it did not exactly inform anything about the MEI and in fact says:
———To deal with the multiple aspects of ENSO, you might imagine that more than one index could be combined into a composite index, such as one based on both sea surface temperature and pressure anomalies, or other combinations. Such composite indexes have been explored. Although these indexes are interesting and innovative, so far they have not been widely used by any of the global forecast producing centers. Why? Well, similar to when we want to justify hiring a potential employee, we often want to list the various skill sets of the person separately rather than to combine them into a single candidate quality score using a complex automated formula.—————
My question to Bindidon was why use the MEI in order to answer Rob’s question to Roy. And your help, though appreciated, would seem to just add to the mystery.
barry says:
The MEI did not meet their objective for California with the 2015/16 El Nino.
What do you mean by this? All indices agree that there was a 2015/16 el Nino, and there was surprisingly little rain in California for that event. Why do you single MEI out?
——————–
Thats precisely the point. The MEI is supposed to emphasize climate disruption not hide it.
“The MEI is supposed to emphasize climate disruption not hide it.”
That’s a very vague answer. Pls connect the dots.
Can you establish that MEI made a prediction about Californian rainfall that was more particular than the other indices?
What is the specific connection between MEI and Californian rainfall? Pls link to an announcement, or description of MEI’s handling of this particular factor.
I think you’re just making word salads that have no basis on this particular matter.
your help, though appreciated, would seem to just add to the mystery.
I explained in my first response why Bindidon prefers MEI, when he answered a question about global temperature and ENSO. You countered (among other things) that MEI got the rainfall of Cali wrong, which seemed like a red herring to me, so I queried that and here we are looking at whether you made an informed comment or just strung some words together to criticise MEI.
MEI never gave a prediction on Cali rainfall, nor have you established exactly why they should have a better handle on rainfall in that state than any other group. NOAA, on the other hand predicted 60% chance of high Cali precipitation for the 2015/16 el Nino, based purely on ONI.
There is a study on that el Nino and Cali rainfall, exploring the different character of el Ninos in an attempt to explain why 2015/16 was different to 1982/83 and 1997/98. ONI is only one part of the ENSO system, and not all el Ninos are the same (which presumably you already know).
https://extranet.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/yr/2018/lee_etal_grl2018.pdf
barry says:
I explained in my first response why Bindidon prefers MEI, when he answered a question about global temperature and ENSO. You countered (among other things) that MEI got the rainfall of Cali wrong, which seemed like a red herring to me, so I queried that and here we are looking at whether you made an informed comment or just strung some words together to criticise MEI.
========================
You obviously missed a lot there Barry. 1) Bindidon, in response to Rob’s query about how ENSO affects climate steered Rob to the MEI. Yet your own link to NOAA explaining the MEI disses it for such a purpose. They like better all the indexes separated as they find melding them loses important information to aid in answering the exact question that Rob asked.
I don’t care what Bindidon prefers I was only responding that if you want to look for climate disruption in California resulting from the 2015/16 El Nino the most relevant index is the ONI, not the MEI. The ONI displayed record levels which corresponded to the record level impacts experienced by California. And that isn’t something that changes over time.
If you want to try to figure out what ENSO does to Arctic Ice a person studying the matter should seperatly evaluate both the ONI and the SOI, and perhaps other stuff as well.
The MEI is like watered down beer.
NOAA thinks so also(I quoted the paragraph for you).
I don’t really care what you want want to think, I only interested if somebody can give me a reason for what they prefer. That’s how you learn.
Apparently Bindidon lacked a concrete reason as he did not reply.
I gave you my reason for my appreciation of the ONI. ONI has been the most relevant index for what happens in California and California is where I live and work. Beyond that I have a global interest but have no reason, nor could find one from NOAA as to why the MEI would serve that purpose. But I am ready to learn.
Bill,
“You obviously missed a lot there Barry. 1) Bindidon, in response to Rob’s query about how ENSO affects climate steered Rob to the MEI. Yet your own link to NOAA explaining the MEI disses it for such a purpose.”
No. You again characterise. Rob asked specifically:
“I have a question about the El Ninos. These seem to be a major factor in our multidecadal warming phase we are currently in. Have there been any climate studies about El Nino events that occurred in the early 20th Century?”
The link to NOAA says nothing about multivariate indexes in terms of global climate. Again, you weave a story on thin air. THE NOAA text doesn’t speak to Rob’s interest at all.
“To deal with the multiple aspects of ENSO, you might imagine that more than one index could be combined into a composite index, such as one based on both sea surface temperature and pressure anomalies, or other combinations. Such composite indexes have been explored. Although these indexes are interesting and innovative, so far they have not been widely used by any of the global forecast producing centers. Why? Well, similar to when we want to justify hiring a potential employee, we often want to list the various skill sets of the person separately rather than to combine them into a single “candidate quality” score using a complex automated formula. This way we can explain just what went into our hiring decision, and also know where future improvements may be needed.”
That’s the full paragraph that you partially quoted. You are adding in meaning that just isn’t there.
You are not a reliable witness.
“I was only responding that if you want to look for climate disruption in California resulting from the 2015/16 El Nino the most relevant index is the ONI, not the MEI. The ONI displayed record levels which corresponded to the record level impacts experienced by California.”
What the hell are you talking about? The ONI indicated that there should be record high level rainfalls in California for the 2015/16 el Nino. But there was only slightly above average rainfall, unusual for most el Ninos.
I have suspected that you don’t know the usual rainfall anticipated in Cali with el Nino, or that you are ignorant of the rainfall with respect to the 2015/16 event.
Bill, you don’t know what you are talking about. Cali had unusually low rainfall for an el Nino during the 2015/16 event. Predictions based on ONI would have given it an extremely high rainfall, which didn’t happen. NOAA did, in fact, predict high rainfall for Cali.
You singling out MEI is bizarre. I don’t think you have a good grip on this at all. Not even the basic observations.
Jesus, Bill. I thought you were across this stuff. Obviously you are not.
Barry, keep your shirt on!
My question was to Bindidon was why he thought the MEI would help answer Rob’s question.
The NOAA quote that you just requoted talks about the usefulness of each and every component of the MEI and largely disses the MEI as an ongoing effort to make the ENSO index a more useful tool.
The record level effect in California was seen in ocean temperatures, ocean biota (warm water species never seen that far north), record rainfalls following the El Nino that took California completely out of record length drought, near record forest fires as a result of first year high rainfall spurring massive undergrowth of forests followed by a second dry year that makes California’s mesquite forests highly susceptible to fires.
So you might want to pull your head out of the dark place you have inserted it in and just simply say you don’t know what the MEI is useful for. . . .unless of course you do know and are just avoiding telling me.
The MEI is an index that puts a numerical value on the strength of el Ninos, like the other indices. None of them by themselves have explanatory power for what specifically happens in California or with Arctic sea ice, especially when the unexpected occurs.
“The NOAA quote that you just requoted talks about the usefulness of each and every component of the MEI and largely disses the MEI as an ongoing effort to make the ENSO index a more useful tool.”
It says that using a single number made up of those components is not useful for forecasting. Well obviously. Just as the ONI value is not useful for forecasting. Forecasting takes into account many more components than NINO3.4 SSTs to predict the course of ENSO. The difference between ONI and MEI is that one uses a single component to construct their index, and one uses multiple. That’s it.
You started earlier talking about Californian rainfall, and asking why MEI did not account for it. I’ve pointed out – with references – that it was hardly a record event – it was low for an el Nino. But you are still speaking of “record rainfalls following the El Nino.” This actually occurred 7 months after the el Nino ended, and is not associated with it. In fact, the floods occurred just after a la Nina had ended. See for yourself, from the ONI index.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Bill?
There were species fluctuations off Cali waters during the el Nino event, including the die-off associated with el Ninos of phytoplankton (but not as much as expected), seals and other sea fauna, and increases in other species. The persistent warm pool in the region known as “the blob” has contributed to species die-off and incoming warm-water dwellers.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL069716
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180309170647.htm
https://phys.org/news/2016-07-el-nino-sharks-marine-life.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Blob_(Pacific_Ocean)#Marine_life
But for much the event, SSTs near California were lower than in other strong el Nino events, despite the presence of the
“blob,” that gave the warmer waters more persistence.
“…in the eastern Pacific (monitored by indices for the NINO3 and NINO1+2 regions) the El Niño remained below the level of the 1982/83 and 1997/98 events.”
https://www.ecmwf.int/en/newsletter/151/meteorology/2015-2016-el-nino-and-beyond
There are many papers on the connection (possibly) between ENSO and Arctic sea ice. That’s where one would look, not at any indices. Bindidon wasn’t answering that query, though.
To clarify – SSTs near California were not as high as could have been considering the previous major Ninos and the presence of the “blob” combined.
barry says:
The MEI is an index that puts a numerical value on the strength of el Ninos, like the other indices. None of them by themselves have explanatory power for what specifically happens in California or with Arctic sea ice, especially when the unexpected occurs.
=====================
Well you are wrong right out the gate. I will tell you the values of the ONI over the 60 years I have studied the ocean here in California are very closely related to the ONI value. 2015 is clearly the largest in my 60 years since I took up imitating a California sea lion. I think it all started when my grandmother took me to see and feed the sea lions in a large water tank on the beach.
I don’t know about the arctic.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says: It says that using a single number made up of those components is not useful for forecasting. Well obviously.
=======================
We are in agreement there Barry, but I am still waiting for you to tell me if its good for anything.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says: But you are still speaking of record rainfalls following the El Nino. This actually occurred 7 months after the el Nino ended, and is not associated with it.
=======================
You are way in deep over your head Barry. First rainfall years are not calendar years. Second, ENSO is not the only factor that affects rainfall in California. Third, the effects of the 2015 El Nino were still being felt here at the start of this year. I haven’t been paying much attention in the last month or so but the warm water from that El Nino was still trapped inside of the California current off the southern California coast in June of this year.
What affects California rainfall is everything from here to the Aleutian Islands and perhaps beyond. Typically when an El Nino gets started it starts along the entire California coast simultaneously with what is going on at the equator. I have perused a few SST charts and it appears the same thing may affect the entire west coast of South America as well but that might be one of those “same but different” deals that goes on with the SOI. I have no idea about that as I haven’t tried to trace the relationships to the SOI.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says: The persistent warm pool in the region known as the blob has contributed to species die-off and incoming warm-water dwellers.
=======================
Again way in over your head. The blob, per se, had nothing to do with species migration. Species don’t jump over 500 miles of cold water to get to the blob. Ocean currents that formed the blob are associated with the El Nino currents. The species also didn’t jump from ENSO 3.4 to southern California either.
The Blob may in fact have had a very large effect on forage. The sardine, a phytoplankton feeder, was noted as being in trouble 2 years ago and just a few weeks ago NOAA notified Mr. Anderson (quoted in one of your articles) that he must begin a process for a plan to allow the fish stock to rebuild. The sardine is a major California commercial fishery so it appears we may not yet be out of the weeds on impacts from the 2015 El Nino
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says:
But for much the event, SSTs near California were lower than in other strong el Nino events, despite the presence of the
blob, that gave the warmer waters more persistence.in the eastern Pacific (monitored by indices for the NINO3 and NINO1+2 regions) the El Niño remained below the level of the 1982/83 and 1997/98 events.
=======================
You probably didn’t notice that Nino 3 and Nino1+2 aren’t anywhere at all near the California coast. they are off the coast of Peru.
Nothing I disagree with in those articles that I saw. In fact I personally know most of the people interviewed for those articles, except the Wikipedia one. When it comes to ranking the El Ninos on 1) species migration; 2) southern California SSTs; 3) rainfall associated with the water conditions associated with El Nino; 4) the ONI value reached by the El Nino; 5) the persistance of the warm water imported into southern California; the 2015/16 El Nino ranks #1 in my lifetime of ocean study.
So here we are talking about the 2015/16 El Nino at length and you still haven’t given me one single reason why I should like the MEI. LOL! Are you always so evasive?
“I will tell you the values of the ONI over the 60 years I have studied the ocean here in California are very closely related to the ONI value”
You spoke of rainfall at the outset. If you went purely off ONI you would have been wrong about the amount of rainfall for the 2015/16 event. ONI and Cali rainfall during el Nino do not always correlate, as was mentioned in one of the very first articles I linked after you complained MEI didn’t account for it.
It’s not my fault your first mention of Cali and ENSO was about rainfall, but it is your fault that you haven’t acknowledged that ONI was a lousy indicator for the 2015/16 rainfall there. This is a gap on your side of the discussion.
“I am still waiting for you to tell me if its good for anything.”
Why are you waiting for me to do that? You asked why Bindidon preferred it and I told you. The discussion could have ended there but you made the stupid rainfall comment and I challenged you on it and you still haven’t answered that, except to get the timeline wrong.
So what do you say about rainfall now?
“ENSO is not the only factor that affects rainfall in California… what affects California rainfall is everything from here to the Aleutian Islands and perhaps beyond.”
MEI is five components, none of which include the Aleutian Islands. So why you took a shot at MEI and rainfall is getting fuzzier and fuzzier. To be clear, I don’t prefer any data set over another, I just wonder why you made the stupid comment about MEI not accounting for Cali rainfall – which you still haven’t clarified.
BTW, all articles on it – including those written by people you know – state that there was surprisingly low rainfall associated with the 2015/16 el Nino. Not record rainfall.
“The blob, per se, had nothing to do with species migration. Species dont jump over 500 miles of cold water to get to the blob”
Researchers beg to differ. Apart from my links above, here are some others:
https://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/news/features/food_chain/index.cfm
“…there are three warm zones, said Nate Mantua, leader of the landscape ecology team at the Southwest Fisheries Science Center: The big blob dominating the Gulf of Alaska, a more recent expanse of exceptionally warm water in the Bering Sea and one that emerged off Southern California earlier this year. One exception to the warmth is a narrow strip of cold water along the Pacific Northwest Coast fed by upwelling from the deep ocean.
The situation does not match recognized patterns in ocean conditions such as el Nino Southern Oscillation or Pacific Decadal Oscillation, which are known to affect marine food webs…
Research surveys in the Gulf of Alaska this summer came across species such as pomfret, ocean sunfish, blue shark and thresher shark often associated with warmer water, said Joe Orsi of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center Auke Bay Laboratories in Juneau.”
and
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2015/04/150411-Pacific-ocean-sea-lions-birds-climate-warming-drought/
“But the Pacific along the U.S. West Coast really got weird in 2014, when fishermen started catching ocean sunfish and warm-water thresher sharksoff Alaska…
…Scientists now believe these changes are all loosely connected to a giant swath of warm water sitting in the eastern Pacific.”
These things are happening in 2014, before the 2015/16 el Nino properly got going. Yes, it seems the “blob” contributed to unusual species migration, and very likey so did the el Nino later on.
“You probably didnt notice that Nino 3 and Nino1+2 arent anywhere at all near the California coast. they are off the coast of Peru.”
I know where NINO1, 2 3 and 4 are located. I mis-edited the post as I wrote it and joined two things together. The 2015/16 el Nino was marked by unusually cool temps on the 1+2 region (relative to other major el Ninos), an indicator that not all el Ninos are the same or have the same impacts further afield – something you haven’t seen worthy of acknowledging as yet.
For ocean temps near California:
“Here we describe impacts of the 20152016 El Nino on the California Current System (CCS) and place them in historical context…Impacts on the physical state of the CCS are weaker than expected based on tropical sea surface temperature anomalies; temperature and density fields reflect persistence of multiyear anomalies more than El Nino…
During the winters of 19821983 and 19971998, CCS [California Current System] SST anomalies were greatest near shore, consistent with a deep thermocline and anomalously weak upwelling, and marked cross-shore SST gradients extended hundreds of kilometers offshore. While positive SST anomalies were also observed near shore during the 20152016 El Nino, particularly south of Point Conception, cross‐shore gradients were much less pronounced and the broad‐scale temperature structure appears to be more consistent with ongoing decay of preexisting northeast Pacific warm anomalies than with a warming signature of El Nino…
“The subsurface tells a similar story… While our 35 year time series show considerable correlation between the Niño 3.4 Index and wintertime d26.0 off central/southern California (r ≈ 0.8; Figure 5), the three strongest El Niños highlight important variability in this relationship. In 1982–1983, d26.0 ranged from ~0.5 to 2 standard deviations (σ) deeper than that predicted by Niño 3.4, and d26.0 in 1997–1998 was ~2σ deeper than that predicted by Niño 3.4. In contrast, d26.0 in 2015–2016 was ~1σ shallower than that predicted by the Niño 3.4 anomaly. The observed CCS d26.0 anomalies are consistent with a relatively weak oceanic teleconnection from the tropics in 2015–2016.”
Mark that – NINO3.4 did not prove to be a great indicator for oceanic effects around California during the 2015/16 el Nino.
I have no idea if MEI is a better index or not. I only explained why Bindidon preferred it, and challenged you when you criticised it for some connection to California rainfall which you have not yet explained. I do know that different el Ninos have different characteristics, and ONI is not an absolute predictor of Cali rainfall.
barry says:
=====================
You spoke of rainfall at the outset. If you went purely off ONI you would have been wrong about the amount of rainfall for the 2015/16 event. ONI and Cali rainfall during el Nino do not always correlate, as was mentioned in one of the very first articles I linked after you complained MEI didnt account for it.
=================================
You are doing everything but answering the question I asked of Bindidon. I am perfectly aware that the ONI is one stupid postage stamp sized piece of the Pacific Ocean. I also realize that the MEI includes more stuff in it. Fine and dandy we have somebody cranking out multiple indexes on a computer in attempt to be able to predict what is about as close to chaotic system one assuming it isn’t a chaotic system in which case the effort is doomed.
Now you are jagging rainfall up yer rear. Myself I am aware of the above and aware the climate system is much much more than a few indexes. You guys hang on to computer models like they were mothers giving you motherly advice. First generation children of the robot age!! It doesn’t matter if it actually works better it just has to work better because it uses a bigger computer with more inputs. I mean MAN ol Klaus has 64 Xenon processors in his machine! Wow, wish I had that for League of Nations!!!
Myself I realize the ocean currents have a huge impact on climate both in the ocean, near the ocean, and even around the world. Lets see ol 2015 out did everybody on the ONI, tied 1982 for first place on on worldwide climate trend net effect (10year trends in HC4), came out a close second to 1982 on worldwide climate trend net effect (10yr trends in UAH), set up the water conditions off California for a record rainfall over the period of influence, actually created a small fishery for an exotic species never before caught in California beyond what the other two big ones had done.
So once again if you acknowledge that multivariant indexes aren’t useful for forecasting any of this stuff what are they good for other than for tossing around on a blog pretending you know something nobody else does?
What I use ONI for is for a double check on what I am already perceiving. If the water is warm in the late spring, and I will undoubtedly already know it because I spend a lot of time in it, I will go check the ONI for forecasting purposes and check out what NWS has to say about what is occurring Pacific wide. I do that because climate is highly variable and there can be other explanations for warmish or coldish water off California, like some unusual winds like northeasters spurring upwelling or south easters pushing warmer southern water up the beach. The ONI gives me an inkling of an idea of how long it all might last.
This is highly reliable because its apparent the major ocean currents, primarily driven by the Coriolis effect, have ENSO 3.4 squarely on the circulation path of the Coriolis winds (from here to ENSO 3.4 it follows the trade winds.)
It does seem to have an extra terrestrial driver because ENSO events seem to tend to involve both hemispheres. So my perception of it all, which could be wrong (and is the only reason that I have continued to engage in this particular subthread) is ONI is kind of like the traffic light on the ocean current highway with temperature being like a trafficmeter counting how many cars are stopping or going through.
Now ol Klaus he is going ultra sophisticated with his brand spanking new super computer and searching for a combination of traffic signals that do a better job of forecasting (or whatever it is that you refuse to tell me the MEI is for if its not for forecasting). So I just gave you a lot of detail for the reasons I don’t think it is. So what are you going to do? Start criticizing my list without explaining how the MEI did a better job? Or ideally start explaining what you or Bindidon use it for and why it better suits your purpose. Or if that isn’t your purpose maybe how about saying something intelligent about it other than the rainfall influence wasn’t enough all by itself to work immediately. Quite simply you will never in your lifetime find something as linear as what you seem to be seeking in the ocean.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says:
=======================
Its not my fault your first mention of Cali and ENSO was about rainfall, but it is your fault that you havent acknowledged that ONI was a lousy indicator for the 2015/16 rainfall there. This is a gap on your side of the discussion.
=====================
You are being too specific. I long ago realized that the ONI had been failing to produce for many years.
California just suffered an extended drought that went mostly through an El Nino dominated period of time 1980-2007. 2015 El Nino at least temporarily ended that.
The meme that El Nino is strongly associated with California rainfall has been passed around for generations.
Such memes take on a life of their own not based in reality. They become cliches pulled out of the hat in moments notice to nitpick at ocean microprocesses and minor delays and other such nonsense that has no place in oceanography of a chaotic or nearly chaotic system.
++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says:
===========================
I am still waiting for you to tell me if its good for anything.
Why are you waiting for me to do that? You asked why Bindidon preferred it and I told you. The discussion could have ended there but you made the stupid rainfall comment and I challenged you on it and you still havent answered that, except to get the timeline wrong.
So what do you say about rainfall now?
=============================
I already said it. You just fail to acknowledge the lack of specificity of an ocean index. A specificity that doesn’t explain all the oceans chaotic-like behaviors.
This part of the discussion is getting tiresome and tedious. It would be much more directly relevant if what you are trying to circle around to was to explain how the MEI had done a better job with these micro processes. I will have more on that later.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says:
============================
ENSO is not the only factor that affects rainfall in California what affects California rainfall is everything from here to the Aleutian Islands and perhaps beyond.
MEI is five components, none of which include the Aleutian Islands. So why you took a shot at MEI and rainfall is getting fuzzier and fuzzier. To be clear, I dont prefer any data set over another, I just wonder why you made the stupid comment about MEI not accounting for Cali rainfall which you still havent clarified.
======================
I am afraid we are getting into the what kind of bonehead are you phase. What is it that you don’t understand about record levels of rainfall? That it didn’t give the proper deadline date to buy an umbrella?
++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says:
========================
BTW, all articles on it including those written by people you know state that there was surprisingly low rainfall associated with the 2015/16 el Nino. Not record rainfall.
=====================
There are a lot of people who probably should know better but don’t because of group think. El Nino and rainfall is a “legend” that has a lot of merit but people overly associate the relationship. As Dr. Lindzen tries to lecture the warmists the climate system is extremely complex and simple rules and associations only hold together loosely. Yet legends take on a life of their own. And man oh man when you criticize a legend you are getting yourself into some deep doo doo, they used to burn people at the stake for that.
And as any auditor with years of experience will tell you, these kinds of memes are not limited to the ignorant and unwashed.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
barry says:
======================================
The 2015/16 el Nino was marked by unusually cool temps on the 1+2 region (relative to other major el Ninos), an indicator that not all el Ninos are the same or have the same impacts further afield something you havent seen worthy of acknowledging as yet.
———————-
BS! All I have been telling you is the indexes don’t capture all the variability.
Nino 1+2 and 3 aren’t used by NWS for the ONI because they originally were and they were found to be less predictive of broader ONI effects. In other words the ONI is a better predictor.
My own opinion on the matter which I have not studied from an equator perspective but can extrapolate from what occurs in California is that lower number NINOs are polluted from the sort of coast approximate geographic effects of being close to the coastline (in the stuff you noted for California there was an except for close to shore to upwelling zones). That except for no doubt applies to Peru as well, so the lower NINOs might be better for Peru but worse for California and probably worse for the rest of the world as well.
I am not sure you can mix worse into a multi-variant index and make it “generally better” but clearly you could to make it “locally better”. I could be wrong but I can’t think of a single reason why its a better indicator of global climate changes or arctic ice.
And finally you claim to have told me why Bindidon prefers the MEI and why he pointed Rob to it. But telling me he likes it better was already obvious and my question was why does it like it better. Does Klaus really have a better computer? Is it shinier? I have no clue.
“It would be much more directly relevant if what you are trying to circle around to was to explain how the MEI had done a better job with these micro processes.”
You keep asking me to persuade you about something I have no interest in. Did I say MEI did a better job? Nope. Do I prefer MEI? Nope. And I’ve said so. So why keep bothering me with this? I’m not Bindidon – go ask him.
So – you are alone in thinking that the 2015/16 el Nino brought record rains to California, ending the drought. Everyone else – and I mean every researcher looking at it – recognized a surprising lack of rainfall associated with that event.
Bill Hunter is right and they’re all wrong, huh? Wow.
But wait, you wrote:
“The meme that El Nino is strongly associated with California rainfall has been passed around for generations.”
So… are you now saying that ONI is not a good indicator of Californian rainfall?
Ok, so now explain this comment:
“The MEI did not meet their objective for California with the 2015/16 El Nino.”
And lest we be unclear on the context, the exchange a little after that.
bill hunter “The MEI did not meet their objective for California with the 2015/16 El Nino.”
barry: “What do you mean by this? All indices agree that there was a 2015/16 el Nino, and there was surprisingly little rain in California for that event. Why do you single MEI out?”
bill hunter: “Thats precisely the point. The MEI is supposed to emphasize climate disruption not hide it.”
You seem to agree with me here that there was surprisingly little rain in California for that event, despite saying the opposite elsewhere, and doubling down that MEI missed a beat.
Well how can MEI miss a beat if the association between el Nino and Cali rainfall is a MEME?
I can only go off what you say, bill, and you are making it very tough to lace together a congruent view from what you write in different posts.
barry, please stop trolling.
More studies that concluded that late 20th century sea ice was significantly lower than earlier in the century:
“Early 20th century Arctic warming in retrospect,” Wood and Overland, Intl J Climatology (2009)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1973/abstract
“Reconstructed changes in Arctic sea ice over the past 1,450 years,” Christophe Kinnard et al,
Nature 479, 509512 (24 November 2011)
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v479/n7374/abs/nature10581.html
Walsh and Chapman (2000)
Graph here on top right:
https://tinyurl.com/ydez9gx5
See:
“Sea ice before satellites, N.S.I.D.C.
https://tinyurl.com/yap5bms6
David, please stop trolling.
Thanks for the report.
2019 is shaping up as the hottest non-El Nino year on record, and people in the comments section here waffle on about cooling trends. Human capacity for self-delusion is truly amazing.
Yes.
It’s great.
Warmer weather, longer summers, longer growing season, more food for the people of the world.
One can only wonder about those who want it colder, more ice more snow, shorter growing seasons, starvation.
What does get in their heads?
Nobody want anything except what’s natural.
If you like warmer temperatures, why don’t you move south instead of expecting the entire world to warm up just for you? 3 billion people in the tropics think it’s warm enough already. In Dubai workers are having to take mid-days off because it’s too hot to work.
David,
Would you also want ‘natural’ in the middle of a glacial period? Almost all of the most recent 500k years of earth’s history were much colder than we are now. I certainly wouldn’t want that…
Barry
It is natural for people to want to be healthy, happy, and prosperous.
What is unnatural is for rational people to believe what doomsday catastrophists,and any other people who selectively edit history, make up facts, and invent fake crises, have to say about anything.
There is no place on Earth where hot weather will kill a healthy person. All one needs to survive the hottest deserts is enough water. A naked person with water (ok sandals and a hat would be nice too) can walk right across the Sahara desert.
But huge areas of our planet are perpetually frozen to deadly cold temperatures, and a far wider area, most of the surface, is cold enough on a seasonal basis enough to kill a person within hours.
Yet somehow, some people find it uniquely horrifying that there are places where people prefer to avoid doing strenuous physical labor the heat of the day outside in the Summer Sun?
On a side note, does anyone happen to know the year of origin and history of the cultural adaptation known as “siesta”?
It was in 1998, right?
Barry, our civilization developed during the Holocene, a time of favorable climate, and has adapted to it. Science shows that times of large climate change have always been stressful for species, often leading to extinctions.
We’re not currently in danger of falling toward another glacial maximum, so we had plenty of time to decide what to do about it. Like many millennia to decide. Instead we’re changing the climate at an enormous rate, and acidifying the ocean, with little plan or control.
DA believes: “Instead we’re changing the climate at an enormous rate…”
Wrong DA. We’re NOT changing the climate “at an enormous rate”. You need to get that pseudoscience out of your head and learn some physics.
DA believes: “…and acidifying the ocean…”
Wrong DA. The oceans are NOT “acidifying”. The buffer effect is enormous. We could pour massive amounts of acid into the oceans for decades and decades, and still make no difference. And, we’re not even doing that. Learn some chemistry.
“…were changing the climate at an enormous rate…”
Only in alarmist fantasy land.
“…acidifying the ocean…”
False.
It is impossible for the oceans to become acidic.
The diurnal variations greatly exceed even the exaggerated claims of alarmists.
As does the variation with depth of the top ten meters of ocean, as well as the variation with latitude, and the differences between the major ocean basins.
There is no empirical evidence of the slightest harm to life in the sea due to increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere.
None.
David,
So, basically your poo-pooing the possibility of ~15C cooling and glaciers covering where a decent percent of humanity lives and where most of our food is grown, even though we are overdue for it; however, you’re going apoplectic about ~1C warming, much of which is likely natural?
Regarding the Holocene and adapting… what exactly do you mean? If there has been adaptation going on over the last ~10k yrs with temperatures near the extreme high for the stable earth system, what do you think that would mean for 15C colder. Now there we would see some serious adaptation.
‘We’re not currently in danger of falling toward another glacial maximum’… says who? If you’re referring to the paper you linked to in a previous post, that paper claims we need another 80-100yrs of CO2 emission (status quo) before reaching the upper bound of that necessary to guarantee no glaciation. If I read the paper correctly, this would be necessary to prevent the onset of glaciation, which I gather would be something that would be impossible to stop once it starts. Well, we better make dang well sure it doesn’t start and we’re not there yet.
‘changing the climate at an enormous rate’… compared to what? 15C cooling? Now that is enormous.
As I’ve asked others, David, what do you propose to ‘fix this problem’ you are touting? Carbon tax, solar/wind, investments in green energy research? You realize that practically if that is implemented say in our country (USA) it would be very expensive, take ~30yrs to see meaningful changes in CO2 emissions from our country, and we only account for ~15% of global emissions? No one on this blog has explained to me the global plan for solving the problem and it is a global problem. So, no solution…
Barry
Acidifying the oceans means lowering the pH, which is what we are doing when we add CO2 to the atmosphere.
So these statements are BS
“False.
It is impossible for the oceans to become acidic.”
Water is already an acid, you know H2O, because of the H.
And JD, steps in it again
” Wrong DA. The oceans are NOT acidifying. The buffer effect is enormous. We could pour massive amounts of acid into the oceans for decades and decades, and still make no difference. And, were not even doing that. Learn some chemistry.”
Even when buffered as the oceans are, adding acid still reduces the pH. The difference being the solubility of calcium carbonate which increases with decreasing pH, which could be a problem for animals with calcium carbonate shells.
bob is always willing to display his ignorance of science.
Here, he obviously has no awareness of the massive amount of calcium carbonate on ocean floors.
Let’s let him bask in his own incompetence.
Do you think that’s how people want to live, living in deserts with water?
Already in India there have been heat waves that threaten humans, where the temperature rises so high that the body can’t cool down by sweating. Workers in the UAE have to take mid-days off to stay out of the heat. About 700,000 Bangladeshis were displaced in the last decade by natural disasters and sea level rise.
And it’s only going to get worse. 3 B people live in the tropics. You’re not thinking about their welfare.
JD the dumbass,
By the cliffs of Dover and the shells of Mt Everest I said
“Even when buffered as the oceans are”
Yeah there is enough calcium carbonate in the oceans, that if it was turned into gas, to pressurize the earth’s atmosphere to say 90 bar.
David Appell says:
Do you think thats how people want to live, living in deserts with water?
Already in India there have been heat waves that threaten humans, where the temperature rises so high that the body cant cool down by sweating. Workers in the UAE have to take mid-days off to stay out of the heat. About 700,000 Bangladeshis were displaced in the last decade by natural disasters and sea level rise.
And its only going to get worse. 3 B people live in the tropics. Youre not thinking about their welfare.
==========================
Egads! Drama Queens!
People have been collapsing from the heat in the middle east and India for all history.
Add to it now the hand wringing over shellfish. So studies were conducted and the dang things only grew faster. Throw a little fertilizer out in the garden and guess what things thrive!!!
That just a big problem for the folks that think the world is over populated already. . . .oh what to about it? Can’t be having more food. . . .no, no, no!! Much better to let starvation take a bigger toll. . . .just imagine how many animal lives that would save!
People have been collapsing from the heat in the middle east and India for all history.
Says what?
I saw it on Lawrence of Arabia!!!! LMAO!!!
Again, flippant responses to wiggle out of seriously answering questions and backing up your claims.
Nicholas McGinley says:
It is impossible for the oceans to become acidic.
I didn’t say the ocean was acidic. Obviously it’s not.
I said it’s acidifying. Its chemical property called “acidity” is increasing.
David Appell says:
September 6, 2019 at 6:46 PM
Again, flippant responses to wiggle out of seriously answering questions and backing up your claims.
================================
Its your claim David.
Barry, you’re well aware of the proposed solutions to global warming — no one here needs to explain them to you.
You don’t consider the cost of NOT addressing global warming.
You don’t consider the negative externalities of fossil fuels, like air and water pollution and their impact on health. For example
“How the Clean Air Act Has Saved $22 Trillion in Health-Care Costs,” Alan H. Lockwood, The Atlantic 9/7/12.
http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/09/how-the-clean-air-act-has-saved-22-trillion-in-health-care-costs/262071/
You don’t consider that wind and solar are becoming cheaper than FFs in some parts of the country.
“Locally generated solar and wind energy could already replace almost three-fourths of electricity made by U.S. coal plants for less than the cost of continuing to operate those plants, according to an analysis released today by two clean energy research groups.”
– “Analysis: New wind, solar cheaper than operating most existing coal plants,” Energy News Network, 3/25/19, https://energynews.us/2019/03/25/midwest/analysis-new-wind-solar-cheaper-than-operating-most-existing-coal-plants/
And you don’t consider that the US has cut per capita CO2 emissions by 28% since 1973 while real per capita GDP has risen 114%. Not to mention all the other efforts to curb air and water pollution. Cutting pollution and growing the economy can and are being done at the same time.
David Appell says:
Nobody want anything except whats natural.
———————–
Gee David I thought you lived in your parent’s basement. Are you actually living in a cave? Or just dreamin and decoratin your parent’s basement to look like one?
David,
What I am aware of are proposed expensive policies that would attempt to reduce CO2 emissions in our country. I am not aware of any proposed global solutions to substantially reduce CO2 levels. It doesnt matter what country the CO2 comes from. Any expensive policies enacted in first world countries are likely to push more manufacturing to third world countries, reducing even their minimal impact.
Ah, yes so someone has come up with a model with lots of assumptions that claims if we do not act there are higher risks of future events (storms, droughts) that cause damage and cost money. However, you will not convince me that spending lots of money in our country to get a slightly lower increase of global CO2 emissions over the next few decades will have any impact. Its just noise within the made-up numbers
Your Atlantic article about saving Health Care costs is about pollutants not CO2 CO2 is not a pollutant.
Your Energy News Network article is an opinion piece. I would agree that the cost of wind and solar generators are getting competitive and using some locally generated renewable energy makes sense to replace an aged coal plant or to meet a local new need in energy. That is a completely different story than using wind/solar as a primary energy source meeting a substantial percentage of our energy needs. That would require lots of new transmission lines and storage/back-up solutions on top of the generators.
Yes, the US has cut per capita CO2 emissions. This is a good, natural, progression of an advanced society. We should investigate renewable energy and implement when it makes sense because carbon-based sources are finite. We are currently at the point where making incremental steps toward renewable make sense and that is what we are doing. We are not yet at the point where large-scale changes toward renewables as primary energy sources makes sense.
Again, cutting pollution is great. Weve been doing that for many decades. CO2 is not a pollutant.
Barry
From Javier’s post over at Climate, etc:
Solar control of ENSO has led to the prediction of El Nio conditions in 2018-19 by me, and to La Nia conditions in 2020-21 by Leamon & McIntosh (2017). The 2018-19 Nio prediction has been correct.
The solar min (which we’re at) coincides with el nino and the rise in the solar cycle with la nina.
fonzie
Maybe L&M are right, time will tell, as Salvatore loves to say:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
JMA has recently increased La Nina’s probability from 10 up to 20% for the 2019/2020 horizon.
The NASA model predicts La Nina developing around November:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/model-summary/#tabs=Pacific-Ocean®ion=NINO34
Check these two pix and see if you get a clue
https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2019/09/figure-2.png
http://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
Or go here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/enso/
Joel,
This year was a mild El Nino year, similar to 2010.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/august-2019-el-ni%C3%B1o-update-stick-fork-it
It would be delusional to deny the fact, ie observational reality, that the troposphere has cooled since February 2016.
John, when did you stop saying: It would be delusional to deny the fact, ie observational reality, that the troposphere has cooled since February 1998?
L,
You don’t really care, do you? You are just trying to look clever. What a fool you are!
Cheers.
John Tillman
“It would be delusional to deny the fact, ie observational reality, that the troposphere has cooled since February 2016.”
Yes, but it cooled in the same way after the 1998 El Nino:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNxySq1EfCOl4t9-l4MIpoFdAQZEQ0OG/view
The post-El Nino rebound is similar for both periods.
What would you have said in June 2001?
That the world is cooling?
What would you have said after each La Nina?
That the world is warming?
The best is to look at what happens when you extract all Nino, Nina and volcano influences out of the temperature record.
The residual temperature trend is about 70%.
John Tillman says:
It would be delusional to deny the fact, ie observational reality, that the troposphere has cooled since February 2016.
That doesn’t make it a change in climate! It’s a natural change after the 2015/16 El Nino.
John, this graphic was made just for you: The Escalator
https://skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47
Spare me from this. If you need to explain the escalator, there’s no point explaining.
David, please stop trolling.
joel…”2019 is shaping up as the hottest non-El Nino year on record…”
Straight from the fudged NOAA records.
Remember NOAA? They claimed 2014 as the hottest year ever…based on a confidence level of 48%. They were claiming a 52% likelihood that they were lying.
Speak of self-delusion.
Again Gordon shows he doesn’t understand statistics.
True that David. He doesn’t understand what ‘confidence level’ means either.
And he lies about N.O.A.A’s data, and couldn’t care less that he’s lying.
And then he wonders why no one here believes anything he says about anything.
“Gordon is big bad smelly poo poo head. High five, Lou”.
Gordon Robertson says:
Speak of self-delusion.
————————
Pretty hilarious watching these melon-heads respond to your post. LMAO!
Joel
Except that it was actually a weak El Nino year.
And its a double header.
(the human capacity for ignorant grandstanding is truly amazing)…
Joel says: 2019 is shaping up as the hottest non-El Nino year on record, and people in the comments section here waffle on about cooling trends. Human capacity for self-delusion is truly amazing.
====================
Non-El Nino year? Last I checked it was El Nino through the May/Jun/Jul season and considering the climate effects are about 3 months delayed we should end up with 9 El Nino influenced months in 2019, so what the heck are you talking about? You one of those Aussies?
John Tillman
“However no telling how much longer the now 3.5-year cooling trend from February 2016 will last.”
Aha.
It seems to me that you never had the idea to compare the UAH6.0 LT anomalies for the two periods 1997-2001 and 2015-2019, relative to the periods’ respective beginning.
Here it is (I didn’t update the chart yet to include July and August, that wouldn’t change much):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNxySq1EfCOl4t9-l4MIpoFdAQZEQ0OG/view
1. Do you see the similarity?
2. Where is your terrifying cooling trend?
3. Isn’t it time for you now to understand that the trend for a period starting with a value higher than all values following can only be negative?
binny…”Here it is”
Another binny journey into his Excel dreamland.
Speaking of delusions.
Another dumb, meaningless reply by this blog’s most ignorant but and thus most nonsense writing commenter.
Cheap polemics instead of correct contradiction.
Stop commenting that epic troll!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Mike Stiller,
Did you not look at the UAH temp graph we have had at least a 0.5C drop since 2016 and it will be dropping further faster know because of the Grand Solar Minimum we are in now. Warming from 2000 to 2008 was from Solar Maximum. The cycles of the sun and it’s activity and or lack of drive the climate. Research it instead of being a sheeple and believing everything MSM tells you. People are too lazy today to research the facts
Tom Winthrop
“Research it instead of being a sheeple and believing everything MSM tells you. People are too lazy today to research the facts.”
Yeah.
What about YOU doing that before all others?
1. See (3.) in the comment above yours.
2. Google for ‘Leif Svalgaard’ and ‘Javier’; these two will tell you a lot you have no idea about, especially about the GSM, and Zharkova’s blind-alleys.
*
“Warming from 2000 to 2008 was from Solar Maximum.”
Wow!!
Do you know that Sun’s activity is declining since… October 1957?
Do you know that Suns activity is declining since October 1957?
Bindi, you’re parroting a false paradigm here. High solar activity correlates with warming. Low solar activity correlates with cooling. Solar activity had been high in recent decades (even SC23), hence warming…
https://m.imgur.com/yvrMXFy
(graph courtesy of javier)
Solar irradiance has been slowly decreasing since the 1960s:
http://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TIM_TSI_Reconstruction.png
But surface & tropospheric temperature has been increasing.
David, merely repeating the same false paradigm (albeit with greater detail) doesn’t make it any more correct than when bindi said it…
What is false about the TSI data?
David, please stop trolling.
fonzie, you’re graph shows solar activity peaking in the late 1950’s as surface temperatures continued to rise in earnest. And the peak according to the 35 year moving average around 1970 is less than the peak in the late 1700’s and yet the temperature is significantly higher. So if Bindidon is “parroting a false paradigm” then you’ve picked a rather poor piece of evidence to back up your claim. In fact, your evidence is consistent with Bindidon statements and inconsistent with yours.
bdgwx, when solar activity gets above a certain threshold we get warming as per javier’s graph. That it peaked in the ’50s is irrelevant. It is still high after that, thus warming. Again, high solar activity correlates with warming, low solar activity with cooling. The hundreds year record speaks for itself…
And the peak according to the 35 year moving average around 1970 is less than the peak in the late 1700s and yet the temperature is significantly higher.
Yeah, Svalgaard tried to put the exact same dopey argument past Javier once and didn’t get very far. i think the argument is too dumb for words (so i won’t give it any)…
bdgwx says:
fonzie, youre graph shows solar activity peaking in the late 1950s as surface temperatures continued to rise in earnest.
——————————–
Just note that the solar activity chart you are quoting from is in the 2nd of two new revisions of the list in the last 8 years by a solar scientist completely disgusted with skeptics using solar activity as an argument for natural climate variation.
Bindidon says: Do you know that Suns activity is declining since October 1957?
———————
Of course that doesn’t mean anything when you don’t have clue one what the current equilibrium target the earth is aiming at.
One can surmise from the record of the last 300 years that its higher than where we are at now.
And I am not going to avoid being prejudiced here and not say that CO2 in no way is pushing that target higher. I don’t think it is, at least much, but I am quite certain the equilibrium target is warmer than where we are at now, as was also 20, 60, 100, and even 300 years ago.
Any warmist climate scientist who knows anything at all would at least agree with that for the entire industrial age, which takes us back 160 years ago. So the only thing really in contention would be the earth being below equilibrium for the 140 years before that coming out of the LIA age.
So the question instead becomes how fast can the sun push the earth towards equilibrium and does it do it all the time or just some of the time. Thats another way of saying does the actual push to equilibrium span solar minimum cycles.
My answer to that is no. But the sun is pushing the earth toward equilibrium during the active part of solar cycles.
I also have little doubt that this move toward equilibrium by the sun is stronger than the rate of change in CO2 forcing and that the earth stops moving in that direction when the sun is not forcing it that way. Meaning. . .solar variability is overriding the effects of CO2.
Beyond that I can’t say. Will other factors intervene? All I know is all combined factors up to at least 5 years ago weren’t warming the planet. So has all the recent warming come from the recent ENSO series? Thats hard to say except at the end of my last analysis in 2013 it was still total negative.
In the last few weeks I have become rather convinced we have serious monitoring problems at least in the Arctic. Land, buoy and ship monitoring is far less than ideal and even satellites are recording levels of warming not supported by the reaction of sea ice.
Sea ice should be a ground truther for estimates of arctic warming. The problem might be that low ice extent is revealing warmer water that was just as warm or warmer when it was covered by ice, but now we are measuring it because its uncovered and instead of melting the sea ice its radiating heat to space and into the atmosphere.
The lack of sea ice extent is allowing huge amounts of heat that was trapped under the ice escape to space and get read by satellites and and the surface monitoring system.
I am about ready to predict global cooling occurring within about 2 years. But I think I need to take a few deep breaths and go into the lab and crunch some numbers first to verify my finger in the air anemometer.
What I am virtually certain of not doing is making a claim of how long that will last. Sea ice recovery may go quickly, the solar minimum will only last so long, its uncertain what the next solar cycle will bring, and its uncertain to how much CO2 contributed to recent warming.
B Hunter, Your comments regarding the heat transfer from the Arctic Ocean to the atmosphere appear a bit off, from what little I know about things.
For one, the temperature of the upper layer of water is near freezing and relatively fresh compared with the North Atlantic and, as the air temperature above drops at the end of the summer season, that water begins to freeze rapidly. The resulting thin layer of ice blocks the direct radiation of thermal IR from the water, however, the emissivity of ice is near 1.0 while that of open water is only about 0.5. Thus, the energy leaving the surface as thermal radiation would be expected to increase due to a transition from water at freezing to ice at freezing, not decrease, as your comment implies. The emissivity difference also applies to the melt ponds which form on top of the ice, and as melt pond area increases, the thermal energy emissions decline.
Secondly, there’s a tendency for clouds to form over the sea-ice during the summer, which absorbs much of the thermal IR radiation, so that energy doesn’t go straight up to deep space. As the Arctic warms, more open water would imply more clouds, thus increasing the absorp_tion of thermal IR radiation, while also increasing the albedo, which results in more reflected SW energy, a process which would reduce the rate of energy supplied to the water/sea-ice during the summer melt season. I have no way to assess which process would prevail.
Finally, what measurements we have of the Sun’s energy output from satellites above TOA show little variation over the past couple of solar cycles. Most of the variation is in the UV bands, which are absorbed by ozone in the upper atmosphere.
Have fun in “the lab”, wherever that might be.
I think I am in agreement with you Swanson. Though you might want to check your emissivities for water and ice. I have never heard anybody say water has lower emissivity than ice.
Now if you get the emissivity right ice acts both as an “insulation” blanket and as a radiant barrier for loss of heat conducting through the ice.
Take the blanket off and heat loss goes up. of course the water absorbs more too. But I think when you change emissivity from a radiation point of view it depends on whether the radiating surface over all is a net loser of absorbed heat or a net gainer of absorbed heat which would be determine currents between the equator and the poles transporting heat from the equator to the poles.
Thus the sensitivity is going to be either positive or negative depending upon if the surface is a net gainer of heat or a net loser of heat.
B Hunter, Thanks for the correction on emissivity. I was thinking of emissivity for microwave wavelengths, which I’ve mentioned previously in regards to the MSU/AMSU satellite data.
That said, the Arctic is a net loser of energy at TOA, i.e., more energy leaves than arrives as solar energy. At tropical latitudes, there’s a surplus, which drives the atmospheric motions between the tropics and the poles.
E. Swanson, please stop trolling.
Tom, the long term trend is rising, the 13 month running mean is rising. Your Grand Solar minimum is a bust.
lloydo…”Tom, the long term trend is rising”
If you insist on using fudged NOAA data, you will continue to live in a propaganda fantasy-land.
Gordon,
So why does Dr. Spencer claim and his UAH Satellite-Based Temperature Graph of the Global Lower Troposphere (now Atmosphere) also show that there is an +.13*C trend raise in the temperature per decade?
Dr. Spencer says it, his UAH graph shows it, so is UAH also propaganda fantasy-land then?
Lou Maytrees says:
Dr. Spencer says it, his UAH graph shows it, so is UAH also propaganda fantasy-land then?
=======================
You ought to try helming a big ship someday. Making an emergency maneuver can stop your heart from beating as the ship’s momentum keeps the ship sliding towards the target you are trying to avoid. The earth is just the Mother of all Ships. Nobody really has a handle on how much slippage you can get when the helm changes direction.
Actually if you plot out solar activity all the way back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum you will find that higher than average solar activity continued through Solar cycle 23. Sure the peak of 19 was the highest, and a smoothed curve of activity gives the mid 1980’s as the turning point of solar forcing, but then you have to figure slippage and how far short of equilibrium it might have been when the helm changed course. Of course thats pretty much anybody’s guess considering how much data we have on all that kind of stuff.
With one low solar cycle still winding down after 10 years 9 months, the surface ocean has hardly had a chance to catch up. And who really knows what the next solar cycle has in store? If the triplet pattern continues well the two previous times we did see some cooling. Each time though has involved more unspent warming momentum so the Dalton was the coldest, and the early 20th century warmer, will this one also be warmer as a triplet? I wouldn’t be surprised but maybe a pause continuation? A little bit of cooling? And heck we probably should allow something for continued CO2 emissions. . . .just I am not sure how much.
Seems maybe we will know more in another 3 decades. . . .that is if we don’t just keep spending money on water dousers and instead work some on the science.
bill hunter says:
Actually if you plot out solar activity all the way back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum you will find that higher than average solar activity continued through Solar cycle 23.
Where can I see that plot?
Or the data for it?
Do everything for me, right now. Don’t make me have to think for myself. Get the spoon, and feed me. I will not do my own research. Do as I command, wretch.
Wiki:
“Solar cycle 25 is the 25th solar cycle since 1755, when extensive recording of solar sunspot activity began. According to some scientists, it is expected to begin in late 2019 and continue through 2030. General agreement holds that it will be weaker than average (i.e. weaker than during Modern Maximum).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cycle_25
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Maximum
“The Modern Maximum refers to the period of relatively high solar activity[2] which began with Solar Cycle 15 in 1914. It reached a maximum in Cycle 19 during the late 1950s and may have ended with the peak of Cycle 23 in 2000, as Cycle 24 is recording, at best, very muted solar activity. Another proposed end date for the maximum is 2007, with the decline phase of Cycle 23. In any case the low solar activity of Cycle 24 in the 2010s marked a new period of reduced solar activity.”
David Appell says:
September 4, 2019 at 6:25 PM
bill hunter says:
Actually if you plot out solar activity all the way back to the beginning of the Maunder Minimum you will find that higher than average solar activity continued through Solar cycle 23.
Where can I see that plot?
Or the data for it?
—————-
I have it around somewhere on an old harddrive. But you will have to search the internet archives for it as the old list of solar sunspot counts has been revised twice by Leif Svaalgard a leading contrarian to the idea of the sun controlling the earth’s climate.
I think he thinks he invented a way of seeing through the eyes of long dead sunspot counters and surmised that they couldn’t count right.
Bill,
Gordon claims NOAA warming data is propaganda fantasy-land yet can’t explain why over the same period UAH shows the lower troposphere steadily warming too. Obviously he thinks UAH is propaganda fantasy-land too.
And your Solar Cycle explanation falls flat via the same calculations you use simply by going back to Cycles 12, 13 and 14 which were from 1878 to 1910. Those cycles had well less than 40% of the sunspots of cycle 19 and yet 30 years after them, 1908 – 1940, the Earth warmed.
According to your ‘we have to wait another 30 years dousing’ the planet should have been cooling b/c of low solar activity during that period. Except it didn’t, it warmed those 30 years later.
Also the Sun’s Total Solar Irradiance has declined slightly for the past 60 years while UAH and NOAA, etc., etc., etc., all show the planet warming since the 1970’s.
Also the Suns Total Solar Irradiance has declined slightly for the past 60 years while UAH and NOAA, etc., etc., etc., all show the planet warming since the 1970s.
High solar activity correlates with warming. Low solar activity correlates with cooling. Solar activity had been high in recent decades, hence warming
https://m.imgur.com/yvrMXFy
(graph courtesy of javier)
fonzie,
Your own imgur graph disputes your words.
Do you see the light orange squiggly line at the bottom 2/3 of the imgur graph? That is the Sun’s Total Irradiance or Solar activity as you call it. It has been declining for the past 60 years as your graph clearly shows. The Earth has been warming over that same period.
So we now have low solar activity and the planet is warming, not cooling.
Solar activity as shown in your graph has NOT ‘been high in recent decades’, irradiance has declined, so your correlation is wrong.
While declining, it has indeed been high. A simple comparison with periods of other high activity/ warming easily demonstrates that. (there is no question as to whether SC21-23 are high; they clearly are)…
What do all the colored lines in that graph mean?
What’s the citation for the H. Wanner paper? I couldn’t find it….
What do you mean by “solar activity?”
Poor David is helpless and desperately confused…
…”what’s happening with the graph? What is “graph”?, anyway? What do you mean by “solar”? What is “the sun”? Define the word “what”? What do you mean by “mean”? Where’s the citation? Provide me with everything. Explain “everything” to me. What does “me” mean? Define what you mean by “definition”. Go down to the shops and get me something to drink. Turn around on the spot one hundred times. Define “times”. Do you mean multiplication? What is “is”? Why won’t you answer my questions? That you didn’t answer means I win. Define “win”.
DA’s only purpose in life appears to be to disprove the old adage “There is no stupid question”.
Fonzie,
You’re talking about two different things.
SC (Solar Cycles) 21-23 are about sunspot activity.
The chart you posted is about Solar Irradiance.
Solar Irradiance has declined for 60 years as your chart shows.
Lou Maytrees says: Bill,
And your Solar Cycle explanation falls flat via the same calculations you use simply by going back to Cycles 12, 13 and 14 which were from 1878 to 1910. Those cycles had well less than 40% of the sunspots of cycle 19 and yet 30 years after them, 1908 1940, the Earth warmed.
—————–
Quite to the contrary Lou.
When the LIA forcing ended in 1700 (according to what thermometers we had) we had a relatively cold ocean perhaps top to bottom. How cold? Nobody knows.
Cooling from cold ocean cycles have been diminishing and that may be due to the deep ocean warming that may have started 320 years ago. Thus these short interludes of periodic cool ocean oscillations may be about played out but there could be more in the system. Perhaps solar cycles 24, 25, and 26 will answer some of that.
Several iconic concepts of climate change are always in play.
You first have forcing then you have an extended period of time of feedbacks as the system moves slowly towards the new equilibrium.
The concept of ocean oscillations is quite real and their local climate impacts absolutely undeniable. And of course the global climate is nothing more than a summation of local climates.
Natural climate oscillations remain in the record despite efforts to make them disappear.
At any event cold water upwelling periods could conceivably affect climate in rather dramatic fashion but rather than building any momentum for cooling they are actually just events occurring during an extended period of warming induced by feedbacks. You are thinking the climate system steers like a Porsche set up for a road race. When in reality its more like a large ship lacking any keel.
Like Dude! Thats how feedbacks work!!! Only the dominant feedback is operational. Just like with primary forcing only the dominant forcing is operational.
There isn’t any necessity for the forcing a 3 relatively low solar cycles to reverse the entire store of momentum in the system.
I like to analogize it to helming a large ship. Turn the helm on a large ship its going to slip sideways for several minutes like a race car on ice with free spinning ball bearings for tires kind of like a golfer trying to wave a golf ball into the hole.
An international shipping oversight organization actually establishes standards to minimize side slip in ships changing course to avoid hazards. Thats accomplished in many ways like keel depth, which also affects draft and cargo capacity and limits waters the ship can navigate in due to insufficient water depth. Thats why for safety they need regulation. Their objective is not to beat that Porsche in a road race their objective to land vast quantities of goods in harbors around the world.
What serves as the climate’s keel? Really nothing except the entire bulk of both the atmosphere and the ocean and how many centuries it takes to adjust to what appears to be an ever changing climate. Check out the ice core noise. A solid 2degreeC variation that clearly has around a dozen oscillations in 10,000 years.
Climate propagandists would like to tell you that because of feedback we must act now because of the difficulty of limiting massive feedbacks. Then when they talk about natural variation there are neither any forcings or feedbacks. Its all pure BS.
bill hunter,
You made the claim we have to wait 3 decades to see what the lesser Solar Cycles we are in will do to global temperatures. Now you change the subject to cold ocean upwellings. Not even a good try.
So back to the subject, the cool Solar Cycles 12, 13 and 14 prove you wrong about the following 3 decades after those cycles.
The 30 years after cool SC12,13,14 the Earth continuously warmed.
So you are incorrect.
A little simple research on Solar Cycles proves it.
Lou Maytrees says:
September 6, 2019 at 11:30 PM
bill hunter,
You made the claim we have to wait 3 decades to see what the lesser Solar Cycles we are in will do to global temperatures. Now you change the subject to cold ocean upwellings. Not even a good try.
So back to the subject, the cool Solar Cycles 12, 13 and 14 prove you wrong about the following 3 decades after those cycles.
The 30 years after cool SC12,13,14 the Earth continuously warmed.
So you are incorrect.
A little simple research on Solar Cycles proves it.
++++++++++++++++++++++
Nope! I am afraid you don’t understand the concept of climate momentum.
Thus the momentum from a triplet of low solar cycles could simply disappear over night netted against a larger storehouse of momentum from whatever cause.
Since scientists can’t even agree on how to count sunspots, they are constantly arguing and trying to reinvent the wheel.
By my count there have been two major revampings of the sunspot numbers since probably 2010. Apparently they are dreaming up ways to peer through the eyeballs of long dead sunspot number counters.
You think climate change science is a mess don’t go near the solar scientists who each solar cycle switch their prediction methods to whoever was closest the in the most recent completed cycle. Right now that guy’s prediction is cycle 25 will be slightly bigger than cycle 24. The same guy had a prediction that a new Maunder minimum was upon us a few years before that. Its totally beanies with propellers on top.
yer funny bill hunter,
You reply that we’re going into a 3 decade phase of cooling bc of low sunspot activity momentum yet now you claim scientists can’t even count sunspots and its a useless metric.
Make up your mind someday bill.
Lou Maytrees says:
September 7, 2019 at 1:05 PM
yer funny bill hunter,
You reply that were going into a 3 decade phase of cooling bc of low sunspot activity momentum yet now you claim scientists cant even count sunspots and its a useless metric.
Make up your mind someday bill.
—————————-
You just need to improve your reading comprehension Lou. What I am saying is I believe the folks who actually looked at the sun and counted the spots, not the guy who 2 centuries later surmised how they miscounted.
Of course the answer could be either, but as I am fond of pointing out for the temperature records I willing to consider them all.
But be aware splitting confidence in which one is right makes so one cannot draw conclusions with any degree of certainty.
And in honor of the concept of freedom, equal opportunity, et.al. what I choose to do personally I do not attempt to force others in doing.
So I will match my energy use with virtually anybody I certainly don’t cavort around in a private yacht burning fuel at the equivalency rate of an entire fleet of 747 jet aircraft to preach what I think everybody else should be doing.
Lou you also need to get out of your head that I am making predictions. I am not a climate forecaster and never intend to suggest I am. If you think I made a prediction read it again more carefully. If you still think I made a prediction then ask me if I did, though I a certain I will say I didn’t and cop to maybe a typo or bad grammar to suggest I did.
bill hunter,
Now you even back off your emergency stop big ship helm steerage and Earth is the mother of all ships and your Maunder Minimum w low sunspot activity so maybe we’ll maybe have to wait 3 decades claiming you never said it?
You’re a sad sack bill.
Lou Maytrees says:
Now you even back off your emergency stop big ship helm steerage and Earth is the mother of all ships and your Maunder Minimum w low sunspot activity so maybe well maybe have to wait 3 decades claiming you never said it?
Youre a sad sack bill.
=============================
Gee Lou I probably would be a climate forecaster like you if I didn’t know what could wrong.
An amazing comparison of WUWT’s ENSOmeter history:
1. Until 2018
https://werme.bizland.com/werme/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
2. Actually:
http://4castwidgets.intelliweather.net/enso/wuwt/elninometer-current.gif
Maybe the latter meter is a Heartland recommendation, who knows…
A few months ago, Ric’s meter reached 0.5, and came up again.
Hurricane Dorian has tied the record for the strongest Atlantic storm ever to hit land, matching the Labor Day hurricane that struck Florida’s Gulf Coast in 1935.
studentb…”Hurricane Dorian has tied the record for the strongest Atlantic storm ever to hit land, matching the Labor Day hurricane that struck Floridas Gulf Coast in 1935″.
The 1935 hurricane was above a category 4. I have heard Dorian is now a pathetic Cat 2.
You have to learn to read propaganda. It was the biggest when it hit the Bahamas. Having reached Florida it is now a whimpering Cat 2.
You do understand that by ‘land’ he meant the Bahamas. The USA isn’t the only country in the world that matters.
We have sparse historical data from islands before good radars and satellites.
Midas says:
You do understand that by land he meant the Bahamas. The USA isnt the only country in the world that matters.
———————
Well the US and the UK are about the only governments in the world with records that reliably go back to the 1930’s. However, even there the records of colonies of the UK and territories of the US have suffered from carefully constructed datasets even to the present day.
So there definitely is a difference between precedence in US mainland weather and weather elsewhere. Even for the US climate monitoring has been improving all along. Density of weather information is up quite a bit since the 1930’s as populations have swelled. Maximum wind measurements have to occur at the weather station site so the denser your measuring devices the more likely you are going to find maximums and minimums that meet the criteria for “sustained” and “maximum gust”.
The 1935 Labor Day storm recorded 892 millibars recorded on Craig Key in Florida, lowest reading in the Bahamas was 910 mb when making landfall on Elbow Cay in the Bahamas.
GR wrote:
“Having reached Florida it is now a whimpering Cat 2.”
Still capable of doing plenty of damage, unending lives, and killing people. Not that you seem to care.
DA, are you going down to the Bahamas to help rebuild?
Of course not. If he leaves his basement his parents might change the locks.
–Lake Ohrid is considered the oldest existing lake in Europe. The project began 15 years ago with first preliminary investigations to determine the age of the lake and better understand the climate history of the Mediterranean region. The deep drilling took place in 2013. With a maximum drilling depth of 568 metres and a water depth of 245 metres, it became one of the most successful lake drillings carried out in the framework of the International Continental Scientific Drilling Program (ICDP). The analysis of the extracted material the drill cores with their sediment layers took five years.
We have shown that the lake formed exactly 1.36 million years ago and has existed continuously ever since, the leading geologists Professor Dr Bernd Wagner and Dr Hendrik Vogel (University of Bern) said.–
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/03/oldest-lake-in-europe-reveals-more-than-one-million-years-of-climate-history/
What’s oldest lake in the world?
“Lake Baikal. Situated in south-east Siberia, the 3.15-million-ha Lake Baikal is the oldest (25 million years) and deepest (1,700 m) lake in the world. ”
Why isn’t there lakes older 25 million years?
What if you don’t have to have the lake still be presently- a lake that stopped being a lake a million years ago.
Oldest cave:
THE Jenolan Caves in NSW have been named the world’s oldest discovered open caves, with new research fixing their age at 340 million years.
https://www.theage.com.au/national/jenolan-caves-the-oldest-of-them-all-20060726-ge2sdt.html
There are apparently salt evaporites up to 3km thick beneath the Mediterranean. The basin dried in the past, several times if I understand correctly, and broke through the Pillars of Atlas to refill the basin in a matter of just days or weeks. That must have been something to see. (At least from above.)
I don’t know enough about evaporites to guess whether a finely-structured time series could be extracted, but I’d suggest them as a candidate for someone who does.
“EXACTLY 1.36 million years ago”………….LOL. Pray tell how do you KNOW with certainty that it’s not 1.37 million years ago? Since we are able to determine EXACTLY how the universe came into being! Incredible, unquestioned gross extrapolations on this snail board of supposed educated folks that argue over mere semantics of climactic miniscule variations!
Read the papers and find out.
The “papers” are pure pseudoscience.
Learn some physics, DA.
So your papers are credible based upon what David, radiometric dating? Laughable extrapolations, better known as “faith”, a blind adherence to conjecture and “scientific” notions! Like AGW there ARE two sides to every story and the real possibilities are not democratically determined nor by consensus! That methodology can be called pseudoscience or religion since it has no facts only presumptions! The foundations upon which you stand are like a house built on sand. Perhaps some cognitive reasoning on your part and critical thinking could remedy the situation but unlikely! The hosts of problems with “scientists” method of dating are KNOWN (and yet glossed over)!
Cause and effect are necessary to explain origins, yet you believe it all came from nothing, without cause! INCREDIBLE extrapolations are necessary.
https://answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-earth/
Again, go read the papers before you dismiss them, otherwise your dismissal means nothing and is just denial.
Actually I see the link was posted above. I will read it.
DA you did not provide a link to the papers for me to read. But I will provide one for you that, at minimum, presents the case once again that I have stated repeatedly. Namely, that your datum point of scientific reference is faulty at the outset. Thus they are pseudoscience at best. Moreover, this piece is PEER REVIEWED, albeit, in a different discipline. Therefore, I would surmise that this peer reviewed material would be rejected since it is not climate specific and it does not fit into your worldview nor that of many others on this board. This is why many do not take my objections seriously and think I stand on mere fables and man made creations, when ironically, the exact opposite is true! I suggest you read it before commenting again since it challenges all the vast knowledge upon which you claim to stand! Barry, Midas and many other alarmists would benefit also from it’s evidence, an evidence I noted already, but vehemently rejected and scorned. Scorn if you must but at least read it.
https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/linguistic-argument-gods-existence/
For myself, I have zero interest in discussing God, here or anywhere else for that matter.
Yes Barry we could have predicted the response. Especially, if the evidence is sufficient to challenge your worldview. Since you and many others like you stand conclusively upon questionable science across the board. That means if there is a “chance” you are incorrect about origins then everything else believed collapses as well! The very thought of such a possibility could cause one to become sick to their stomach having succumbed to the indoctrinated drivel that “higher education” espouses!
Go Fish says:
That means if there is a chance you are incorrect about origins then everything else believed collapses as well! The very thought of such a possibility could cause one to become sick to their stomach having succumbed to the indoctrinated drivel that higher education espouses!
————–
Yep right on the mark. I just told Lou I would be a climate forecaster like him if I didn’t know what could go wrong.
Go Fish,
‘Most importantly, we need to point people to the importance of starting in the right placeGods Wordwhen interpreting the evidence.’
is how your article on The age of the Earth Ends.
This article then is not about science at all. How can it be science if it only works for the tiny fraction of people in the world who accept Genesis as the literal word of God.
Science is only useful in the world if it is universal. Meaning scientists from anywhere on Earth must be able to look at the same scientific evidence and arrive at the same conclusion, independent of their religious beliefs.
IOW science doesnt work if there is one science for Christians, another for Muslims, another for Buddhists, another for Hindus, another for Atheists.
The data point still looks like the tail end of the peak of a relatively small El Nino. The El Nino is defined by an oscillation of equatorial Pacific Ocean (Nino 3.4), and for whatever reason there is a lag between the event and the lower troposphere response. Since this one ENSO went to neutral conditions rather than a strong La Nina, I anticipate a minor drop of .2 deg C or so. If true, then global warming is ongoing even in UAH.
As a scientist I would love to see a cooling trend, but I doubt I get to see that in my life.
Yes, global warming is ongoing. I don’t think you’ll see any real drop in global temperatures now… I expect the global temperature anomaly will hover around +0.3 for the next couple of years.
Yes I tend to agree. Skeptikal.
I will likely be forced to bottom and unable to reply.
We’ll see, Aaron. We’ve still got that cool sun thingy (which i know your big on), so we’ll all just have to wait and see. We’ve had some surprises before. Maybe we’ll have them again. We’ve been waiting for the prospect of cooling for a long, long time. (now’s no time to jump the solar ship!)…
Fonzie. Yes I still think evidence for a stronger sun including magnetic influence is supported based on literature. It could be a lag between force and response and cooling is around the corner, or it could be in a pristine environment cosmic rays nucleate clouds more but in a industrialized environment they do not. Basically if the atmosphere is supersaturated with ionized particles from human activities, then perhaps it overrides the natural sun earth climate system.
You watch once luke warming is established then cosmic rays will be trendy because they offer an oppurtunity to justify why CO2 is not driving extreme warming. Then they will say once the sun gets active again watch out… lol. Basically, they need the emergency to be now for funding, but in 20 yrs now will potentially include a strengthening sun.
Thing about the sun is, changes in TSI have only a minor effect on temperatures — about 0.1 C or less for 1 W/m2 change in TSI. And TSI has increased by about only 1 W/m2 since the Maunder Minimum:
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/Historical_TSI_Reconstruction_sm.png
The thing about CO2 is, it has much, much, much, much, much less effect on temperatures than the Sun.
Learn some physics, DA.
Yes primary research on climate variation would probably be better focused on the vagaries of water phase changes.
The truth is that most of the CO2 theory rests on that as well.
The wettest, coldest windiest winter I remember in the UK more like a good winter. Fancy being lectured by those who have only been around 20/30 years.
Tim Wells
“Fancy being lectured by those who have only been around 20/30 years.”
Aha.
I very well remember the winter in Western Europe in 1956, especially February. The snow cover was higher than myself.
Today I know that Germany and France were over 10 C below the 1981-2010 average.
That is in comparison far lower than the February 2019 average for Minnesota!
Tim Wells
To give you an idea of where your UK winter has been within 1880-2019, here is an ascending sort of the anomalies wrt 1981-2010 for the period above:
1881 1 -5.53
1895 2 -5.12
1947 2 -5.09
1963 1 -4.84
1895 1 -4.19
1986 2 -4.12
1940 1 -3.96
1963 2 -3.90
2010 12 -3.87
1883 3 -3.85
At position 163 of 1675 you find
2019 5 -1.96 (yes: May, and not e.g. February)
And here is your 2019 UK winter (an average of 23 GHCN daily stations – there were over 100 until 2017):
2018 11 1.18
2018 12 1.29
2019 1 -0.61
2019 2 1.56
2019 3 0.45
2019 4 -0.07
2019 5 -1.96
2019 6 -0.93
2019 7 -0.14
That is as usual the difference between local weather and the climate around it.
binny…”Tim Wells
To give you an idea of where your UK winter has been within 1880-2019, here is an ascending sort of the anomalies wrt 1981-2010 for the period above:”
Tim, beware. Binny relies on fudged NOAA data. He ignores the satellite data posted on this site.
Gordon doesn’t understand that the long-term trend of the adjusted temperature data is LOWER than of the raw data.
Why would someone do *that*, Gordon?
David Appell says:
Gordon doesnt understand that the long-term trend of the adjusted temperature data is LOWER than of the raw data.
Why would someone do *that*, Gordon?
———————-
recent warming trends (last 60 years has been increased) long term warming trend 100 years plus decreased.
Why would anyone do that? Hmmm, maybe to better match the CO2 increase curve???? And get rid of some of that early 20th century warming so they can listen less to complaints about their claims for unprecedented warming. Why would anybody do it any other way?
So you think scientists secretly REDUCED the long-term trend to make the case for CO2 warming??
If that was their goal why not just use the raw, unadjusted data?
David Appell says:
September 6, 2019 at 6:17 PM
So you think scientists secretly REDUCED the long-term trend to make the case for CO2 warming??
If that was their goal why not just use the raw, unadjusted data?
————————
Who said anything about “secretly”
Here is what you get when you use a climate-dominated average of 60 months instead of an ENSO-dominated average of 13 months:
https://tinyurl.com/UAH-Last-60-months
Midas
No running average can let ENSO signals disappear. You clearly see that the steepest places in your graph are 1997/98 and 2015/17.
And what the graph shows as well is that there was, in the LT, no temperature increase between 1998 and 2015.
But that is known since longer time, you just need to let a spreadsheet calc compute the linear estimate for Jan 1998 till Dec 2015: it is 0.00 +- 0.02 C.
“Climate-dominated” does not mean the ENSO signal disappears. It means exactly what it says – dominated.
The so-called ‘pause’ would have been a downward swing without the upward forcing – it aligns perfectly with the negative phase of the PDO.
What a Wally! Climate is the average of weather – no more, no less. It dominates nothing. It causes nothing. It is an average. Taken over an arbitrary period, generally 30 years.
Try using science, rather than pseudoscience.
Cheers.
Flynn – “Climate It dominates nothing. It causes nothing.”
Obviously the 10,000 humans left alive during the last Ice Age had a quite different perspective than your dimwittery.
What a maroon you are Flynn.
Jeers
Lou, where are the census records for those 10,000? Are there any photos? Any evidence at all?
LM,
Climate is just the average of weather – by definition.
Do you deny this? Are you a denier?
Or just too stupid and ignorant to know what you are talking about?
Cheers.
JD,
Do some research on human DNA and the history thereof, you may learn something instead of spouting inanities as usual.
Flynn the Maroon,
Yes the “climate” dominates during an Ice Age, as in all ages.
Lou, obviously DNA is something else you know nothing about.
Where’s your evidence of “10.000 humans left alive during the last Ice Age”?
I’ll say it again JD, learn something about human DNA before being the snarky clown who asks for census records and photos of the 10k humans who survived the harsh climate of the ice age we live in.
Lou Maytrees says:
September 4, 2019 at 2:25 PM
Flynn Climate It dominates nothing. It causes nothing.
Obviously the 10,000 humans left alive during the last Ice Age had a quite different perspective than your dimwittery.
What a maroon you are Flynn.
Jeers
============================
You need to refrain from running around quoting controversial poorly sourced theories as fact. Just because you read about the beliefs of a few scientists using water dousing techniques to torture data doesn’t make for a scientific fact.
Nothing but cold water has been thrown on that theory since it was first proposed in late 1990’s.
Yep. Whereas without a persistent positive radiative forcing you might see an up-down-up-down pattern with the positive force we see an up-pause-up-pause pattern. Regardless, the long term trend is undeniable. It will continue as long the energy imbalance on the planet remains positive and there are no large volcanic eruptions or cataclysmic events.
How does step pause, step pause show a systematic influence?
Step-pause-step-pause wouldn’t necessitate a systematic influence, but it would be consistent with it.
No it wouldn’t. Systematic influence would be continuous. The pauses have shown random behavior (probability function <5%). So, the steps would indicate a random natural influence.
Why would a systematic influence like the current 0.6+ W/m^2 energy imbalance necessitate that the surface temperature follow a uniform and continuous trajectory upward? Remember, the positive radiative forcing from GHGs does not turn off all of the other climate modulating agents that move the energy around.
SPA
Throwing terms at us that you recall hearing somewhere in your past, then making up numbers, does not make you sound very convincing.
Come on, if temperature data is experiencing random behavior then there is no “forcing” as you claim.
bdgwx, you’re still confusing science with pseudoscience.
There is no energy imbalance.
There is no “radiative forcing from GHGs”.
Learn some physics.
Midas I tried getting you to watch Salby’s presentation like you claim he did and he performed probability density calculations on the perturbed surface record from about 1970 to about present. It showed <5% probability that the data was non random. You do understand that don't you? It is what actual scientists use. You know the kind of stuff Mann should have used and was expected to produce.
Stephen P Anderson says:
So, the steps would indicate a random natural influence.
What is a “random natural influence?” What is doing the influencing?
David, define “influencing”. What do you mean by “what is”? Give me a link to the dictionary definition of “says”. Give me a citation for your use of the letter “i”. What do you mean by typing a combination of letters, spaces and punctuation marks? Give me a complete rundown of the entire English language in your own words. Failure to do so means eternal victory.
David,
You’ve studied science. You know what randomness is. Whatever has made the planet’s temperature fluctate the last 4 billion years. Those are random natural influences. David, you’re not a scientist. You’ve given up on that and embraced the ideology of the left. The leftist agenda is more important to you than anything. You are a malcontent. A pseudo intellectual. When did you lose it all? What happened?
Stephan P Anderson,
You get a pause step pause function simply from adding a sinusoidal function to a linear trend.
‘No it wouldn’t. Systematic influence would be continuous.’
Ahh, the classic all-or-nothing strawman.
AGW must explain all temperature variation, or it explains nothing.
Go back to any other period in the record, Stephen, you see variation.
Is that supposed to all stop when AGW is active?
Stephen P Anderson says:
Whatever has made the planets temperature fluctate the last 4 billion years. Those are random natural influences.
THe planet’s average temperature doesn’t change unless something causes it to change.
Does your tea kettle’s temperature rise if you don’t turned the stove on?
David, please stop trolling.
Nate says:
September 5, 2019 at 1:42 PM
No it wouldn’t. Systematic influence would be continuous.
Ahh, the classic all-or-nothing strawman.
AGW must explain all temperature variation, or it explains nothing.
Go back to any other period in the record, Stephen, you see variation.
Is that supposed to all stop when AGW is active?
==========================================
I agree with this Nate. The problem is the selective manner the influences are applied politically. All warming is attributed to CO2 and all natural change is relegated to forming the steps.
We see it particularly in regards to the ocean oscillations where it assumed that the natural warming influence seen in the early 20th century that climate models could not duplicate with a primarily CO2 driven model being completely ignored in the latter 20th century. Then David ignorantly jumps in with his favorite argument from ignorance that a kettle can’t be heated unless you turn the heat on.
So the net result is CO2 is the choice of scientists on the basis they can’t think of anything else. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance)
Midas says:
The so-called pause would have been a downward swing without the upward forcing it aligns perfectly with the negative phase of the PDO.
===============================
that would only be true if and only if there is upward forcing and that forcing was sufficient to override the cooling.
In cycles you tend to have peak periods with zeniths or nadirs that average out as a pause. Where you don’t have pauses is when the line is crossing the neutral line, there the curve has to change directions generally right at the neutral line with strong trends on both sides of the neutral line. If this is a 72 year cycle as the star gazers believe it is. . . .we are at least a decade away from the temperature line crossing the anomaly neutral line. Perhaps at the end of solarcycle 25. We got a minidip below the line in 2008 for the first time in several solar cycles, maybe a larger dip this time in the next 2 to 3 years, and a multi-decadal negative departure for the end of sc25.
Obviously forcing from CO2 could derail that, we will have to wait and see. The last thing you want to see, trust me, is the government selling and dictating energy policy for then.
The weak El Nino is dunzo with ENSO SST 3.4 negative at -0.08 as of this week Monday.
This years El Nino was one the weakest in 50 years and has been crashing since March of this year, so given the 5~6 month lag between ENSO cycles and global temps, UAH global temps should start falling relatively quickly in the weeks and months ahead.
There is a chance the ENSO 3.4 SST Index could fall below -0.5C by the middle of October, which means a new La Nia cycle could officially start from January of next year.
The next La Nina cycle will likely be a strong one as there has always been at least one strong one every 10 years, and the last strong La Nia was in 2010.
If it is a strong La Nina, the ENSO 3.4 SST Index could hit -2.0C, which means UAH 6.0 could, at some point towards the end of next year, hit -0.2C.
Moreover, the PDO, AMO and NAO are all approaching their 30-year ocean cool cycles, which likely means falling global temps for around 30 years (as occurred from 1880~1910 and 1945~1976.
CAGW zealots will soon have a lot of explaining to do as global temps start falling for decades…
Samurai-san,
We are exactly on the same page! Funny… your post wasn’t there when I started typing mine!
I’m with you. -0.2 deg on UAH is coming soon.
Sam & Scott, there’s something really weird going on with the northern hemisphere SSTs:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:2010/plot/hadsst3nh/from:2010/plot/hadsst3sh/from:2010
i’d see how this fall’s temperatures pan out before making any prognostications…
Fonzi-san
Most of NH SST temp spikes since 2010 were from the 2015/16 Super El Nino event and from the North Pacific The Blob event.
The Blob event has ended, and After the strong 2020/21 La Nina event, the global/NH SST anomalies will likely return to 2014 SST levels.
The big multidecadal SST trend shift will occur when the PDO/AMO/NAO all enter their respective 30-year cool cycles.
i was actually thinking about this particular year’s spike and how unusual it is compared to the rest. Even as high as the great el nino a few years back(!) i hate even thinking about predictions when there is something strange going on like that. Won’t be long before we see how things unfold anyhow, seeing as 2020 is right around the corner. (and you know what they say, hindsight is 2020… 😉)
Fonzie,
We know that we are in a 3.6 El Nino harmonic off the 2016 high. The NH spiked ~0.5 degrees during the 2015 summer and the 2016 summer during the last super El Nino. I see this one is ~0.4. I don’t see any NH summers where the temperature didn’t spike 0.3 from normal seasonal variance. It makes perfect sense to me that this spike is greater than the normal 0.3, and less than the super El Nino 0.5.
The faster it pops, the faster it drops.
We are not just in September for this calendar year, we are in the “September” of this 11 year El Nino cycle from SC24. We are also in the “September” of the 35 year north Atlantic cycle which for sure get’s the most publicity as it directly influences the arctic ice where all the TV cameras are pointed.
On top of all of that, we are in the “September” of the 400 year solar cycle, and the “September” of the 100,000 year cycle. What could go wrong?
Valid points… As i says we shall see. Everybody hurry up & wait (grab a snickers) and enjoy the ride!
SAM,
So if the PDO, AMO and NAO 30 year cool cycles have cooled off the planet so much since 1880 why is the planet +1*C warmer over that same time?
Just wondering.
Lou Maytrees,
A 30 year cycle can’t cool off anything for longer than about 15 years or so. On the other hand, a 400 year solar cycle can.
Scott R,
So what you are saying is that the PDO, AMO and NAO cool cycles SAM posted about will have no effect at all, except for maybe a short blip, on the continued warming trend of the planet since 1880.
Got it.
Lou… a friendly reminder that the UAH based data has only been around for 1/2 of a COMPLETE 70 year cycle.
I don’t know what I was thinking earlier throwing out that 15 year number. The north Atlantic is a 70 year complete cycle. The cool period is ~35 years, not 15. My mistake.
But yes, these shall we call them intermediate cycles lasting ~1/2 a human life time should not effect a trend going back to the 1800s. You have a much larger 400 year solar cycle however that does.
Scott R,
I’m not sure what your friendly reminder is about but I was replying to SAM’s two 30 year not really cooling periods, more like global temp leveling off ocean periods.
I’m not sure what your 400 year cycle is either.
If we go back 400 years then that is the middle of the Little Ice Age basically, the 1600s. And the last 150 of those 400 we’ve entered a warming period. The LIA brought the planet back in line w the slow 8000 year cooling of the ongoing Interglacial we are in. Now the temp is surging upwards.
How would those two opposites correspond to a 400 year cycle?
Lou… you need to take a look at these periods more carefully. There was actual cooling going on. We cooled by a full degree from the late 1870s to 1910. Then we warmed by a full degree. Then we cooled again from roughly 1940-1975 by 0.6 deg. Then we warmed.
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/from:1850
Now frame that within a 400 year cycle. During the entire 1850-present time period, the earth was on the upswing of the 400 year cycle. The last 7 solar cycles were the largest of the last 400 years… even the last one. Now the warming is over. NASA has predicted the smallest cycle in 200 years. The only question is how long of a delay there will be until we start to feel the effects of this.
Scott R says:
We cooled by a full degree from the late 1870s to 1910.
You’re calculating with the noise, not the signal.
BTW, the noise says we warmed 1.4 C since 1910.
David, please stop trolling.
lou maytrees…”So if the PDO, AMO and NAO 30 year cool cycles have cooled off the planet so much since 1880 why is the planet +1*C warmer over that same time?”
Because the global average was -1C or greater when the Little Ice Age ended in 1850. The planet has been rewarming.
gord,
The LIA occurred after the MWP and brought the global temperature back in line with the 8000 years slow global cooling of the Holocene Interglacial we live in which is easily verified by any Holocene interglacial graph.
Your claim that the LIA “was -1C or greater” is a fabrication.
Planet’s don’t “rewarm” unless something causes it to rewarm. And the temperature is now higher than at the beginning of the LIA.
Facts Gordon will ignore. He has his wooden, staid conclusions and isn’t interesting in facts that challenge them.
David Appell says:
Planets dont rewarm unless something causes it to rewarm. And the temperature is now higher than at the beginning of the LIA.
==========================
We don’t know that.
Did the LIA start at the peak of the MWP?
If it did then the MWP might not have never reached equilibrium.
You can continue to be a bonehead David and keep assuming stuff nobody really knows. You have my permission.
No, the LIA did not occur at the peak of the MWP.
Neither was global.
Beyond that I have no idea what you’re trying to say here, which is often the case with your flippant responses.
David, please stop trolling.
CAGW zealots will soon have a lot of explaining to do as global temps start falling for decades
For the Nth time: natural factors say nothing about anthropogenic warming (or the lack of it).
That’s why people (WMO) usually look at at least 30 years worth of records — some suggest 50 or 60 years — so that natural factors essentially cancel out and what’s left is the real climate signal (without natural fluctuations).
DA is reduced to incoherent rambling.
Whoever heard of 50 or 60 years cancelling out natural factors?
And, he will try to make sense of his nonsense.
Nothing new.
SAMURAI says:
Moreover, the PDO, AMO and NAO are all approaching their 30-year ocean cool cycles,
The PDO is currently positive, after being negative from 2009-2015. Before that it was positive from 1980-2000, with small oscillations between positive and negative since.
So what phase is the PDO actually in?
How much global surface warming do you think there is between the positive phase of the PDO and AMO?
Is the NAO on a 30-yr cycle? It looks pretty random to me, and this is the first time I’ve encountered this.
THanks.
David, please stop trolling.
DREMT
Could you please stop YOUR permanent nonsense?
It gets so boring.
As boring as all the regular trolls, that just keep on trolling. Yes, that’s the idea.
Now Bindidon, please stop trolling.
Wow +0.38 we are burning up! Keep in mind that this number still reflects a weak El Nino. It will surly plummet as we head into the La Nina that coincides with the bottom of the 11 year cycle on a delay just like I said. As the trade winds pick up this winter (NH), this effect will amplify. Even if it doesn’t breach -0.5c, we have dropped by 1 deg c in the 3.4 region and it hasn’t been reflected by the atmosphere yet. For the next 3 UAH readings us cooling alarmists will be having a lot of fun around here as the NH plummets and the global average drops like a rock.
El Nino 3.4 early June ~+0.7 c
El Nino 3.4 early September ~-.36 c
A one degree C drop in 3 months.
As for the 40 year trend… those of you criticizing people for looking at the 98-present trend should point the finger back at your self. It is QUITE possible that the 1980-present trend is only a 1/2 a north Atlantic cycle. How ignorant of you to criticize people looking at a short term trend without considering that your data analysis has the SAME problem. We have cycle upon cycle of increasing timeframes here. Of course there is a bigger cycle on top of the North Atlantic cycle as well.
HADSTT3 North Atlantic:
1903 -0.886 C
1937 +0.719 C
1974 -0.693 C
2012 +1.004 C
today +0.504 C
No surprise, the 2012 arctic ice min has held now for 7 years as CO2 levels increase and the politicians ramp up the climate change scare even more. Looking at the 1937-1974 NA cooling period, clearly the North Atlantic can still go below baseline. I can’t wait.
“I can’t wait” – LOL. I CAN!!! I like it warm. I’m also old enough to remember growing up in the 60’s & 70’s. I do not want that type of cold again but it could happen.
I always like to start at the start of the data (1979). Like you said that was roughly the time that the switch over of the oceans from negative to positive. We have about 4/6th of a complete ocean cycle.
It is interesting how the PDO went negative around 1945 but the AMO plateaued for 15 years. Then in the late 50’s the Pacific had a brief warm spell and then the AMO went negative and PDO went back to being negative. Seems to be repeating.
Next 20 years will be interesting.
Looking at the global air temperature, I see a set of steps, with each upward step at a major El Nino, followed by a roughly constant temperature. This is an alternate view to the usual view of a linear increase with modulations. Since we know so little about the ocean-air interaction, it is possible that this stair formation has some scientific value.
Yes , like this
http://www.pannelldiscussions.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/foxstick.jpg
The holy hockey stick predicts cooling.
How?
PS: The hockey stick doesn’t predict anything — it’s simply a reconstruction of past temperatures.
Yep, a reconstruction kit available for $49.95 from your local Toys For Everybody. Get yours before Christmas arrives.
Huh??
David, please stop trolling.
Like this:
https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator500.gif
David, please stop trolling.
The flat trend ended in 2008. Since then we have been experiencing superwarming. The trend is almost .4 since 2008. That is triple the 40 year trend. Hence we are experiencing super warming. The flat part is over. We are experiencing superwarming
(and yet the 13 month average is only .1C greater than it was in 2002 when the pause began)…
I thought the “pause” was supposed to have begun in 1998. Your denial cult should really get your story straight.
David Appell complained way back that ’98 was a cherry pick. i listened to his reasonig, thought about it a while, and concurred. Last i checked, David isn’t what you’d call a denier. Furthermore, i’m of the mindset that agw extends all the way back to the anomolous warming that began in 1850. (i ain’t exactly what you’d call a denier either)…
mike stiller…”The flat trend ended in 2008″.
BS. it ended around 2015, after 17 years. It was ended by a major El Nino in early 2016 and since then the trend has been negative.
Shorter Gordon: if you ignore the long-term upward trend, some cherry picked trends are downward. (And without any statistical significance.)
David, please stop trolling.
When the activity of the solar wind increases, the long La Nina will begin.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx_frames/gfs/ds/gfs_nh-sat5_sstanom_1-day.png
Will North American winter temperatures still be low?
To David Appell (and anyone else who wants to play):
I have been collecting predictions for the 2020-2040 time frame. Will it be hotter/colder/same and by how much?
If the current 0.13 C per decade holds up then we’ll be 0.26 C warmer in 2040. Climate is not linear however so it is an interesting thing to track.
Using the latest pseudoscientific GHE true believer endless reanalysis paradigm, the answer is yes, and the amount will be between less than nothing and more than nothing.
I hope you find this answer satisfactory. My bill is in the mail.
Cheers.
I don’t it’s useful to play this game. We can all project a trend 10 or 20 years into the future, but we don’t know what kind of natural factors might change/happen in that time or if society will begin to reduce carbon emissions.
Just one note: RSS LT’s trend is 50% higher than UAH LT’s, making it more in line with the surface trends.
“I have been collecting predictions for the 2020-2040 time frame. Will it be hotter/colder/same and by how much?”
Same. Slightly warmer.
“If the current 0.13 C per decade holds up then well be 0.26 C warmer in 2040. Climate is not linear however so it is an interesting thing to track.”
The 0.13 C per decade will not hold up. So rather than .26 C by 2040, it will less than half of this. Less than .13 C by 2040.
But shorter period and more interesting, I would say there is greater 50% that within 2 years we will have returned to “The Pause”.
So, say in last 30 years there would no measurable warming.
But satellite trend for entire record in this future 2 year period will not not changed from the .13 C per decade.
And .13 C per decade will only slightly change by year 2030. Like, say, become .1 C per decade].
Or roughly speaking, a repeat of what you have been having.
And it in terms rising CO2 levels per year, right now we peaking above 2.5 ppm per year:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/gr.html
and next few years it will get below 2.5 ppm per year and average around 2.5 ppm by 2030 AD.
Of course that what saying years ago, and maybe it’s merely I am excessively stubborn.
But they draw their last line at about 2.0 level, so 2.5 C average will be a higher level. But I don’t it will ever average 3.0 ppm or higher increase rate per year.
But within 10 years, I don’t think we get average below 2.0 ppm rate per year- or won’t get another 2.0 line anytime soon.
TRM,
My prediction (FWIW) is that it will be colder. Using multiple timeframe analysis, it is clear that we will be on the down side of the north Atlantic cycle for starters, which seems to have a direct impact on the arctic ice, and therefore global climate. This cycle just started in 2012, so it’s fresh, lasting the entire period you are asking about. Couple that with a grand solar minimum… well.
It is difficult to say how much colder. We don’t have good proxy data for the GSM in my opinion. We just see what the 11 year solar cycle does to the El Nino cycle and can make an educated guess on it. It MIGHT be possible that the GSM will cause the trade winds to die, and MORE El ninos to form, keeping us from plunging. Almost like a battery back up for the earth. This will cause it to get warmer. Towards the end of the GSM as we come out of it, that is where the very cold temps could come into play as the trade winds pick up, and the cold neglected waters surface. I’m still thinking about the GSM and what it might do. Our best bet is to monitor the 11 year cycles, El nino very carefully for hints on what’s to come.
Bottom line, none of this is our fault, but we really don’t know what is going to happen 20 years from now. Heck… the models aren’t even good 1 week out right?
And what is your prediction for the effect of greenhouse gases over the next 20 years?
David,
We will be hitting all time lows for the satellite era. We may possibly shatter a record number of cold records in the NOAA database that have held since the late 1800s.
Man made gases in total are probably my #9 climate forcer. Note I did not list clouds or the jet stream because I feel that is a double dip impacted by many of these, and not a root cause.
#1 El Nino / the sun / 11 year cycle
#2 The 400 year solar cycle
#3 Volcanoes
#4 Heat Islands / Deforestation
#5 Pacific Decadal Oscillator
#6 North Atlantic Oscillator
#7 Albedo / ice cover / snow fall
#8 The magnetic field / cosmic rays
#9 Summation of ALL man made gasses (not just CO2)
Bottom line, man made gases barely change our climate. By the time they have a real effect, we will probably be very happy to have a little extra warmth. The majority of the time the earth is in a much more elliptical orbit than it is now and much colder. We are actually doing life a huge favor right now.
Bottom line, man made gases barely change our climate.
Do you have associated numbers for all those factors, so that you can add them up and say this?
Bottom line, man made gases barely change our climate.
How much, for a doubling of CO2 or the equivalent?
Explain how you derived your number.
David, please stop trolling.
The superwarming trend for the last 10 years indicates about 0.8 warming in the next 20 years. But acceleration due to positive feedbacks is possible. I will go with 0.1 in 20 years.
MS
David Appell says:
September 4, 2019 at 10:41 AM
“Both the sun and the AMO are natural factors. Short-term changes due to natural factors say nothing about anthropogenic warming.”
Now that is rich coming from a guy spending his time arguing humans are causing significant warming based on a UAH record that does not even include a single complete cycle of the AMO in it’s time frame as yet!
This is not a zero sum game. It is a self correcting system always seeking to reach a balance that is ultimately unachievable. Now I may be an ignorant truck driver but it seems to me all this argument about the significance of .2 here or .3 here month after month when the new data comes out is just so much mental masturbation and dick waving. The way I see the optimum time to identify a possible human signature in the temperature is when it is known from past data that the various known natural cycles (Not including the very long term ones like Milankovitch) are in a state that the temperature on a longer term should be dropping.
Yes, humans have/are/will cause significant warming.
Yes, the UAH record isn’t long enough yet to include a full AMO or PDO cycle.
But those cycles cause relatively minor changes in the global temperature. This says a change of phase of the AMO is associated with about 1 C of change in North Atlantic SSTs:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/human-influence-may-prolong-ocean-cycle-gave-birth-harvey
But
“It is now possible to explain the records twists and turns almost entirely without the AMO, says Karsten Haustein, a climate scientist at the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom and lead author of a new study published this month in the Journal of Climate. After correcting for the distinct effects of pollution hazes over land and ocean and for flaws in the temperature record, Haustein and his colleagues calculated that the interplay of greenhouse gases and atmospheric pollution almost singlehandedly shaped 20th century climate. Its very unlikely theres this ocean leprechaun that produces cyclicity that we dont know about, Haustein sayswhich means it is also unlikely that a future cool swing in the AMO will blunt the ongoing human-driven warming.”
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/humans-held-responsible-twists-and-turns-climate-change-1900
Its very unlikely theres this ocean leprechaun that produces cyclicity that we dont know about (but can see in the temperature record)
Actually nice job on the humor, especially for a know it all.
You can’t actually read scientific articles, can you Bill?
PS: It’s pretty easy to appear a know-it-all here, when so many know so little.
Its just you are too dense to see non-science humor. there is no science in a statement about Leprechauns.
David, you want some proof for NOAA fudging? Here you go:
thsresearch.files.wordpress.com/2017/05/ef-gast-data-research-report-062717.pdf
And here, a very interesting one; how data is fudged and rigged back and forth by NOAA/NASA:
youtu.be/H7lgKjvAqt4
Sure. Wanna summarize their evidence?
Do you wonder why these scientists never got this published in a peer reviewed journal? Did they even try? As scientists they know that’s the gold standard, and the scientific community won’t consider this kind of term paper until it is. It looks very amateurish.
DA’s jealously is blatantly obvious. If only here were on the right side of the argument and had the talent to produce work like that.
But, he’s on the wrong side, with no talent.
Nothing new.
What makes you think you have the right to insult people here like you do? It seems about all you have to contribute. Does it make you feel better? Superior? Does it give you little thrills?
And doing so while anonymous is cowardly.
Someone has to cancel the pseudoscience and nonsense you spew here.
Learn to face reality. Learn some physics. And then quit whining.
What I don’t understand Appell is most writers want to search for the truth. You have no interest in the truth. You question nothing about the climate science.
DA,
Why do you choose to feel insulted? Does it make you feel better? Superior? Does it give you little thrills?
Try feeling offended, or annoyed – angry even! Feel even better, now?
Stupid fellow. Who cares how you “feel”? Apart from me, there are probably seven billion people who really don’t care whether you live or die. Do you have an inflated opinion of your own self worth, perhaps? Do you imagine you are important or influential?
Carry on. Take a teaspoon of cement and harden up.
Cheers.
Stephen, I search for the truth every day.
Because you don’t like the conclusions of climate science you choose to stick your head in the sand, avoiding truth. You never give convincing arguments, hardly broach the science, and if you couldn’t say something about “the left” you’d have nothing to say here at all.
I’ve looked harder for the truth about climate change than you will ever come close to.
Funny JDH. You’re among those here who presents the least amount of science, reasoning, data and evidence. From what I see you are incapable of making rational, convincing arguments.
You respond like a child — insults, vague claims you don’t even try to defend, put downs with nothing behind them, no physics at all. Apparently it makes you feel good to write “pseudoscience!” without saying why or presenting an argument. You’re only here to insult people, day after day after day, which is really very sad when you think about it, that it gives you pleasure. You were banned once yet thought you just had to come back and then present the same old insults.
I honestly, really can’t figure out if you and MF are men or 13-year old teenagers.
David, please stop trolling.
I now realize that Appell isn’t an idiot. He has a serious mental issue. Appell, the gold standard isn’t if it is published. The gold standard is if it is true.
What a dumb comment.
Stephen, thats very Feynman of you!
David, to you Feynman was a moron?
How much do you know of Feynman’s work? Ever studied path integrals? QED? Ever calculated a Feynman diagram? Ever learned about hadronic partons?
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says:
How much do you know of Feynmans work? Ever studied path integrals? QED? Ever calculated a Feynman diagram? Ever learned about hadronic partons?
======================
David what is the biggest thing you ever built? A Legos castle?
dan Qubek…thanks for links, Dan. Supports what I know, that NOAA. GISS, and Had-crut have blatantly adjusted the historical record to show unprecedented and excessive warming.
Hansen of GISS even admits it. Guess he forgot to inform David Appell.
Gordon, why are the adjustments done?
Why are you afraid to even look at the reasoning? To think? To learn? I’ve never seen someone so determined to be wrong.
David, it is even more dangerous being determined to be right.
David, please stop trolling.
Scott R says:
“I’m with you. -0.2 deg on UAH is coming soon.”
I would like to bet with you. What is the time limit? Is it when the next la Nina comes? Or the one after? Or is the time limit 5 years? Or 10?
Because we’ve had la Ninas in the past few years and haven’t gone below the 1981-2010 UAH baseline.
So I’m willing to wager with you. Are you firmly convinced of your prediction, or is it more like wishful thinking?
barry… respectfully, only a fool would bet money on the weather. lol
That said, I’d be happy to publically post my forecast of -0.2 on UAH within 5 years right here on this blog.
We haven’t had a deep La Nina since 2008. (under -1.6)
2008 -1.9
1999 -1.7
1988 -2.3
Interesting that the deep La Nina seem like they are spaced by 11 years roughly eh? The sun (like the earth) is not on a timer. Each cycle is unique due to all the harmonics, and seasonal variances.
If the 1980-2016 linear UAH trend was caused in part by the north Atlantic like I think it was, the trend will be invalidated by a return to -0.2.
Ok – the difference is I’m betting on climate.
I’ve bookmarked your prediction. You expect to see a -0.2 anomaly by August 2024.
If in 5 years UAH anomaly does not get to the -0.2 mark – how will that impact your understanding of what is happening?
barry it is difficult to say. I will review the north Atlantic data to see if it did not start the multi-decadal downtrend yet for starters. I’ll also have to review PDO to see if that offset the AMO. It is also possible that the GSM will create a permanent El Nino at first. The trade winds require high solar activity to start. Without high solar activity, it is difficult to get the upwelling. The delay we will get from the GSM is impossible to nail down for certain. I believe the NA + the normal 11 year La Nina is all we need to see -0.2, so I like my prediction.
In case you were wondering, that would not be enough to change my mind about CO2. IF CO2 is providing forcing, it must be doing so by increasing the heat content of the ocean. I know this because the ocean leads the air – not the other way around. I found several multi-decadal instances where ocean temperatures declined yet the sea levels rose by the same linear amount. Also, as the arctic ice cycles, I again found the ocean sea level to be linear with the peaks and valleys dependent on the arctic ice, but all being temporary in nature. This leads me to believe that the majority of sea level rise is geological. IF we start to see sea level accelerate off the linear trend, I may even convert to a luke warmist. I’ll never be an alarmist because the majority of sea level rise is natural.
“Also, as the arctic ice cycles, I again found the ocean sea level to be linear with the peaks and valleys dependent on the arctic ice, but all being temporary in nature.”
Scott, you do realize sea ice melting does NOT affect sea levels, right?
JD,
I will agree with my global warming counterparts that it has an effect, but it is temporary in nature, and it isn’t the #1 forcer by any means. For instance, the sea level in New York has actually been dropping since 2012 as we came off the arctic ice min. But the linear up trend will eventually overpower that and the trend will continue up. This is because sea level rise over long periods is linear and has nothing to do with the arctic ice.
Huffman is right. Sea ice floats on water. Like the ice in your glass, it doesn’t change the level of the water when it melts out.
(Sea ice melt actually does affect sea level, because of the change in salinity when it melts, but it is such a small change as to be insignificant)
Land ice, however, is another story.
Scott,
“In case you were wondering, that would not be enough to change my mind about CO2”
What would it take? Is there a reasonable scenario that could convince you?
barry, please stop trolling.
David, can you narrow the specific date (1.36 million) to include the hours, minutes and seconds, please? I am certain you have them in your back pocket!
Read the paper to understand how they came up with their results and error bars.
David, please stop trolling.
lou maytrees…”Bill,
Gordon claims NOAA warming data is propaganda fantasy-land yet cant explain why over the same period UAH shows the lower troposphere steadily warming too. Obviously he thinks UAH is propaganda fantasy-land too”.
I can explain it well. Ever heard of the Little Ice Age. It was a 400+ year mini ice age that lasted till 1850.
During the LIA, global temps were 1C to 2C below normal. Glaciers grew enormously and the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere likely dropped as colder oceans absorbed it.
Since 1850, we have been rewarming at about 0.5C/century, according to Syun Akasofu, a renowned geophysicist. It’s warming today because the recovery is incomplete.
No…I don’t think UAH data is fantasy-based. UAH does not engage in the chicanery and scientific-misconduct of NOAA, GISS, and Had-crut. They could but Roy and John have far too much integrity to feed political machines by altering data.
Ironically, alarmists want to alter the UAH data to show more warming. They would if they could.
The UAH trend has a range from 1979 – 2019. The first 18 years was a recovery from cooling due to volcanic aerosols. The next 17 years showed a flat trend. So, from 1979 – 2015, the TRUE warming (above the baseline) was limited to less than 0.2C.
It increased in 2016 due to a major El Nino but since the trend has been negative.
Which volcano were we recovering from in 1979?
Midas, you must have missed Gordon’s sentence: “The first 18 years was a recovery from cooling due to volcanic aerosols.”
The major volcanoes during those 18 years were:
1980 — Mount St. Helens
1982 — El Chichon
1991 — Mount Pinatubo
18 years to recover from volcanic aerosols.
lol
Lou, how many different ways can you and Midas misrepresent Gordon’s sentence?
Anything is better than facing reality, huh?
Individual eruption impacts (major) really only last about 3-4 years. Look at TLS here:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html
There may be a small residual component that lasts longer. For instance, if you hold the ground level temperatures down for 4 years, the ocean heat content drops, ice in the arctic builds. These things take many additional years to fade away. It is completely fathomable I guess you could say that we always have volcanic forcing at all times. This makes sense as smaller eruptions could also be having an influence. Interestingly, if every volcano stopped erupting tomorrow, the temperature would rise. Our equilibrium is actually dependent on continued volcanic eruptions.
This same concept can be used to explain why the little ice age is still impacting us today. The amount of energy lost from the system at that time has taken centuries to bounce back. That however was triggered by the 400 year solar cycle.
lol JD,
Your gordon quote is quite specific “… first 18 years was a recovery from cooling due to volcanic aerosols.”
In reality Gordon’s quote is complete gibberish.
But maybe you can explain it JD.
Lou, when you see the quote as “quite specific”, but also complete gibberish”, then you are obviously confused.
Could you be “quite specific” about your “complete gibberish”?
That however was triggered by the 400 year solar cycle.
How much did the Sun change and how much did the Earth’s temperature change?
JDHuffman,
Which is why I asked you.
You obviously can’t explain it ‘specifically’ or reason out his ‘gibberish’.
You simply play childish word games.
Go ahead JDHuffman, you made the claim gordon was misrepresented so explain exactly what he means.
If you can of course.
gordon,
a) There is no scientific study on this planet that shows the LIA was “1C or 2C below normal”. You simply made that up. Or maybe you can show proof?
b) Dr Spencer and Christy’s 40 year UAH Lower Troposphere graph shows more than +.5*C warming during that 40 year period. You claim there’s only been .2*C warming.
Once again, is UAH ‘propaganda fantasy-land’ by claiming +.5*C of warming?
lou…”Dr Spencer and Christys 40 year UAH Lower Troposphere graph shows more than +.5*C warming during that 40 year period. You claim theres only been .2*C warming”.
********
Can you read an anomaly graph, Lou? In case you can’t, here’s a hint from NOAA.
Note…with the following link you must copy/paste it to your browser (or a text editor) and remove the hyphen (-) from ncd-c.
https://www.ncd-c.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php
“The term temperature anomaly means a departure from a reference value or long-term average. A positive anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was warmer than the reference value, while a negative anomaly indicates that the observed temperature was cooler than the reference value”.
Got that Lou? A +ve anomaly means warmer than the baseline and a -ve anomaly means colder than the baseline.
Even though UAH posts a 0.12C/decade trend, 18 years of it is mainly colder than the baseline. UAH explains that as cooling due to volcanic aerosols.
I agree that this is a problem with anomalies, they don’t tell you the absolute trend. It no doubt warmed between 1998 and 2019 but no 4 decades x 0.12C/decade = 0.48C.
When you analyze a trend line you MUST consider the context from which the data was derived. A number-crunched trend line tells you nothing. It’s a number, unless the data source is absolutely linear in its response.
That is not the case with the UAH data.
In the 33 year report, UAH also tells us that ‘true’ warming did not occur till the 1998 El Nino. You got it, Lou. the 18 years below the baseline cannot be called true warming, it is re-warming.
Since we had a flat trend from 1998 – 2012 (IPCC) and 1998 – 2015 based on the UAH graph on this site, and the flat trend sat at around 0.2C, I am claiming that’s all the warming we have had during the UAH range till 2015.
UAH called it ‘little or no warming ‘over the range.
GR, UAH LT’s trend up to Dec 1996 was 0.09 C/decade, 70% of its current trend.
David Appell says:
September 6, 2019 at 5:56 PM
GR, UAH LTs trend up to Dec 1996 was 0.09 C/decade, 70% of its current trend.
——————–
thats only because it was only 16 years long then. The concept of 17 years being the minimum time for a climate trend is virtually dead. The complete inability to identify the natural variations that have occurred has created a science without science. A science whose only argument is to not argue. A science supported solely by the claim “the science is settled”. A science that avoids arguments on the merits as encouraging obfuscation. A ready made to order science where compliant actors are made super stars straight out of grad school and given assignments like making 300 years of science disappear under a tide of obfuscation.
This is exactly how it was before the science revolution.
“The concept of 17 years being the minimum time for a climate trend is virtually dead”
The idea that 17 years was a hallowed marker was all the doing of armchair skeptics crying it out from the rooftops. The conclusion in the same paper written by Santer et al was that multidecadal periods were needed. But this was somehow overlooked by the braying pack.
barry says:
The idea that 17 years was a hallowed marker was all the doing of armchair skeptics crying it out from the rooftops. The conclusion in the same paper written by Santer et al was that multidecadal periods were needed. But this was somehow overlooked by the braying pack.
=========================
So in effect what you are saying is Santer wasn’t determined he was correct in offering a 17 year warming period as the fingerprint for anthropogenic climate change?
I’m saying I read the whole paper and that you as well as the braying pack have misconstrued it.
Santer did not offer “a 17 year warming period as the fingerprint for anthropogenic climate change.”
The period length is not the fingerprint.
It was put that periods of “at least’ 17 years were required to determine an anthropogenic signal, but concluded that multidecadal periods were best. The conclusion is quoted fully:
“In summary, because of the effects of natural internal climate variability, we do not expect each year to be inexorably warmer than the preceding year, or each decade to be warmer than the last decade, even in the presence of strong anthropogenic forcing of the climate system. The clear message from our signal‐to‐noise analysis is that multi‐decadal records are required for identifying human effects on tropospheric temperature”
To work out why there is a difference between the abstract and the conclusions, I suggest you acquaint yourself with the whole paper.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1029/2011JD016263
Most estimates in the literature indicate multidecadal periods are required to tease out a climate signal, much less an anthropogenic signal. The canonical period is 30 years (WMO). The 17-year period is just one estimate, and not canonical, however much skeptics would like to pretend it is.
barry, please stop trolling.
Gordon,
The UAH temperature baseline is based on 1981-2010, so of course the earlier years are ‘colder than the baseline’ on a warming planet. Duh. Its a 30 year baseline. That’s how a baseline works.
And there was not ’18 years below the baseline’, you once again made that up.
‘re-warming’ from volcanic aerosols? There were no major volcanoes worldwide during the 1970’s, Mt St Helens 1980 is not even a blip on the UAH Tropospheric graph, and so you and UAH claim El Chicon 1982 kept the planet cool for the following 9 years, even when a number of those yearly anomalies went well above the baseline? The volcanic aerosols claim does not hold up.
And you still have not answered your statement that the LIA was -1*C or -2*C colder than ‘normal’.
Gordon Robertson says:
During the LIA, global temps were 1C to 2C below normal.
Another GR talking point for which Gordon has no evidence. Everything from him is a fairy tale.
David, please stop trolling.
binny…”John Tillman
It would be delusional to deny the fact, ie observational reality, that the troposphere has cooled since February 2016.
Yes, but it cooled in the same way after the 1998 El Nino:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZNxySq1EfCOl4t9-l4MIpoFdAQZEQ0OG/view
The post-El Nino rebound is similar for both periods.”
*******
Does not embarrass you at all to post this home-brew drivel?
There is no similarity whatsoever between the post 1998 and post 2016 ENs. The 1998 EN dropped straight to the baseline and below only to rebound with a 17 year flat trend. The 2016 En has yet to come near to the baseline.
I call you an idiot for a reason.
edit…”Does it not embarrass you at all …”
The ‘baseline’ you refer to is the trended average, which is currently +0.306. We have already fallen below that and are currently above it. You know – the variability you claim we ignore.
Robertson
You can call me an idiot as long as you want.
That won’t change anything to the facrt that you are and will stay forever tghe most uneducated, ignorant, pretentious boaster.
Still today, you don’t understand what is a baseline! Incredible.
Imagine Roy Spencer would have kept his baseline on the old period ‘1979-1998’ which was given up around 2010!
All that trashy crap coming out of your wiskey-soaked brain would be even more ridiculous.
binny…”you are and will stay forever tghe most uneducated, ignorant, pretentious boaster”.
You can call me uneducated, you can call me ignorant, you can call me pretentious, and you can call me a boaster, but you dasn’t have to call me Johnson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCqh5ROtQRg
The recent warming period is perfectly explained by the strong solar activity during the 20th century
CO2 has no identifiable causal role in the process of influencing climate.
https://notrickszone.com/#sthash.DjXgXpww.dpbs
Eben
I don’t care wether or not CO2 is a cause of anything, but I get a big laugh at people like you being gullible followers and believers of what Gosselin publishes on his Trick Zone blog…
Eben, why would you believe some often wrong blogger rather than the scientists who have studied climate for decades and do detailed work based on data and evidence?
What does that get you? I really don’t understand it. I think it’s a more interesting question than anything scientific discussed here.
You mean like Salby or Berry? How can you question anyone about their ethics? You are a traitor to science.
The subject is obviously about the paper from Dr. Rex J. Fleming, a former NOAA climate scientist who earned both his Masters and Ph.D in meteorology.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324035341_An_updated_review_about_carbon_dioxide_and_climate_change
I am posting the original notrickszone link because thats where I got it so to give them the credit , but the climate shysters instantly start attacking the blogger with ad hominems,
This is why you can’t have any kind of reasonable debate with these morons.
No Tricks Zone isn’t honest. He’s put fake pictures on his blog:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/faking-before-and-after-pictures-of.html
and is often full of crap:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/more-bad-tricks-from-notricks-zone.html
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/06/notricks-zone-steps-into-it-again.html
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2017/01/another-sleazy-photoshop-from-pierre.html
But I doubt you will care, since he tells you what you want to hear and you show no interest in real science (which doesn’t come from bloggers and blogs.)
Eben says:
This is why you cant have any kind of reasonable debate with these morons.
=======================
Indeed Eben! Its not debate to detract from an article that can be found in several places on the web simply because one doesn’t like a particular blog site.
Only a moron would believe that who republishes an article reflects the credibility of an article. These morons are so invested in parroting authority they have foregone independent thought and nothing but robots.
Next thing you know some giant moron will go on about something else the blog publishes rather than addressing what you posted. total ignoramuses all.
Funny, you asking for a detailed analysis. You ignore all of them and try to laugh them off. You’d do it again if I analyzed this Fleming paper.
David, please stop trolling.
Stephen P Anderson says:
You are a traitor to science.
You obviously don’t know enough science to make such a judgement. Or are capable of defending your claim.
David, Steven is right. All you have offered in this subthread is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy and actually treasonous to science.
Why not address the article and what it says rather than launching into ad hominem attacks, which is just another fallacy and treasonous to science.
I offered four links showing NTZ lies.
Even if I address the article, people like you will just laugh it off, not understand it, and not care anyway. So what’s the point?
Tell us all the science you know, then.
You are spouting drivel. Scientists use the scientific method to pursue ” . . .the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.”
Meteorology is science. Astrology is more akin to science than climatology.
No GHE. No CO2 heat production.
Here’s a challenge for you – as winter approaches, each day may be a little colder than the one before. How can this be? What happens to all the heat supposedly trapped by CO2?
Off you go now – use a bit of observation and experiment. Science, you see.
Cheers.
David Appell says:
I offered four links showing NTZ lies.
Even if I address the article, people like you will just laugh it off, not understand it, and not care anyway. So whats the point?
======================================
LMAO! Sad but true!
However, maybe it has something to do with your methods of trying to make a point David. Criticizing a published article on the basis of one blog it was republished on is a pointless criticism. If you can’t make a criticism that has a point why not just give up?
I made *four* criticisms that had a point — one in each of the links I supplied.
David, please stop trolling.
Scott,
Recalling a prediction you made in July on la Nina:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-362979
“Seems to me, the leaders are saying we are going into a La Nina. 1+2 is ICE cold JUST like Antarctica…”
and
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/07/record-high-temperatures-in-france-3-facts-the-media-dont-tell-you/#comment-363224
“Barry, region 1-2 are leading indicators because the upwelling occurs close to South America…. Expect big changes in the July report.”
The latest NOAA update forecasts ENSO neutral through to next year.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
“The lagging region 4 will plummet shortly.”
NINO4 never got below 0.2, and is currently at 0.6.
I never though 1+2 was a leading indicator – the leading indicators is 3, and 3.4, and the Southern Oscillation.
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/#tabs=SOI
If a la Nina comes soon, as you speculated, then you would be right against pretty much all the major forecasters, which are predicting ENSO neutral through to the first quarter of next year. Good luck!
Based on these latest indicators from the tropical ocean and atmosphere, NOAA forecasters have declared that El Nio has ended and neutral conditions have returned. Does a return to neutral mean that average weather conditions are expected to prevail around the globe? As Michelle pointed out a couple years ago, the answer is an emphatic NO. A return to neutral means that we will not get that predictable influence from El Nio or La Nia, but the atmosphere is certainly capable of wild swings without a push from either influence. Basically, ENSO-neutral means that the job of seasonal forecasters gets a bit tougher because we do not have that ENSO influence that we potentially can predict several months in advance (in a probabilistic form).
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/enso/august-2019-el-ni%C3%B1o-update-stick-fork-it
barry if memory serves… I was one of the first people to say El Nino was going to end early and many folks came out here in droves to tell me how we need 3 months under 0.5 and that I can’t trust tropicaltidbits, the 1+2 region does not lead… blah blah blah. Well, the 3.4 region is now at -.4 and has been under +0.5 for 3 months. I win.
Now Nino 1+2 is at -1.1. I’m staying with my prediction that we will go into a La Nina soon based on the 11 year cycle and the changes we are seeing in ocean temperatures.
The trend is your friend barry
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino34.png
I see for a day we actually went under -0.5. So unofficially, I’ve already nailed it. But I do not think this is done dropping yet. The annual trade winds are about to increase and drop this even more, hold it under -0.5 for the 3 month threshold.
barry
I was quite surprised to detect yesterday, when looking for the first time since 2 weeks at
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html#fig2
that JMA changed its prediciton for
AUG 2019DEC 2019
from
80 % neutral / 20 % Nina
to
20 % Nino 60 % neutral 20 % Nina.
Strange.
But… JMA has by far the best ENSO prediction mechanism worldwide.
barry… one more possibility. If geology isn’t causing the linear trend in sea level… There is ALSO a chance that the heat content of the ocean is being added by a steady rate due to the fact that we are in an interglacial, and our very nice, warm circular orbit is slowly adding energy to the system at a steady, predictable, yearly rate. Also not our fault.
Adding energy from where?
The sun, obviously. As the earths orbit slowly gets more circular, the energy added to the system is slowly increasing. The oceans are in a “catch up” phase until the orbit starts getting more elliptical. That said, this is my 2nd favorite theory after geology / and isostatic rebound causing the linear sea level trend.
What is the time scale on which the Earth’s orbit is getting more circular?
Say, what’s the change in eccentricity per unit time?
David, please stop trolling.
Scott,
“Well, the 3.4 region is now at -.4 and has been under +0.5 for 3 months. I win.”
No, you predicted a la Nina. You “win” when we get a la Nina based on the metric you are indicating – NINO3.4 SSTs persisting for 5 consecutive overlapping 3-month periods under -0.5 C for NINO3.4 region. We are nowhere near that.
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
Oops – this was meant to be the second link:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/
Scott,
“barry if memory serves I was one of the first people to say El Nino was going to end early..”
You predicted a la Nina. You say that quite clearly in the first link. That’s what I recorded at the time, specifically because it was a clear prediction.
Your prediction is different from the institutes’. Let’s see how you go.
barry says:
If a la Nina comes soon, as you speculated, then you would be right against pretty much all the major forecasters, which are predicting ENSO neutral through to the first quarter of next year. Good luck!
===========================
“pretty much all the major forecasters”. Yep only pretty much all, except until this summer pretty much all were predicting El Nino this winter.
Bottom line Barry anybody can play this game as nobody has yet set themselves apart as being able to actually predict ENSO. Its all like a game of pinning the tail on the donkey.
“Yep only pretty much all, except until this summer* pretty much all were predicting El Nino this winter.”
That’s simply not true. BoM and NOAA did not make predictions prior to Summer that went any further than the following Fall, as they usually do. Please don’t just make things up.
NOAA forecast 11 days before NH Summer*:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190521084552/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
Bom forecast on 14 and 28 of May, the latter which indicates return to neutral by November:
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20190514.archive.shtml#tabs=Outlooks
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/wrap-up/archive/20190528.archive.shtml#tabs=Outlooks
JMA has less on the waybackmachine, but in March their model output centred on a neutral NH Winter.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190224110619/http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/nino_fcst/indices/indexninofcst.html
[click on NINO3, which is JMA’s metric]
* BTW, I live in Australia, so when you talk about Summer and Fall as time indicators, you are talking about your half of the globe, so it would be good if you could speak in terms of months rather than seasons for this kind of thing, to avoid misunderstanding.
barry says:
September 7, 2019 at 8:12 AM
Yep only pretty much all, except until this summer* pretty much all were predicting El Nino this winter.
Thats simply not true. BoM and NOAA did not make predictions prior to Summer that went any further than the following Fall, as they usually do. Please dont just make things up.
NOAA forecast 11 days before NH Summer*:
https://web.archive.org/web/20190521084552/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
————————————-
Barry if you go to the 23 and 24th slides in your link, International Research Institute (IRI) for Climate and Society which establishes the official NOAA outlook has a consensus of all models predicting El Nino through this coming Winter. I am not clear on what your motivation are for the revisionist opinions you are expressing.
Further the April outlook you linked to were followed later by the May outlook:
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/2019-May-quick-look/
and another month after that by the June Outlook
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/2019-June-quick-look/
Then in July they became unsure ranking Neutral as the top category for the coming winter in early July then backtracking in mid-July for the official government statement going back to favoring El Nino for the winter.
https://iri.columbia.edu/our-expertise/climate/forecasts/enso/2019-July-quick-look/
“Further the April outlook you linked to”
It’s the May 20th outlook. You said “until this Summer pretty much all were predicting el Nino this Winter”
https://web.archive.org/web/20190521084552/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
On page 25 the CFS.v2 model sees the el Nino tailing off to neutral by NH Winter in the model ensemble, directly under the slides you mentioned. Did that slip your view?
So, no, not ALL models.
And as I said above, the various institutes don’t make predictions as far as length of the model runs, because the uncertainty increases.
I’m not revising history – you are over-interpreting graphs. No institute announced prior to last Summer that el Nino was likely to persist through Winter, because they don’t predict that far ahead owing to increasing uncertainty beyond a certain time. Just because they show the full model run into the increasingly uncertain future, doesn’t mean that they are making a prediction that far ahead.
For the May 20 IRI forecast they say:
“The official CPC/IRI outlook, with an El Nino advisory, calls for an approximate 70% chance of El Nino continuing during Jun-Aug, decreasing to 55-60% for Sep-Nov.”
The official prediction prior to Summer is only up to November.
If we go to June 20 the NOAA official government announcement PDF, we find the model run on p.25 comes with the statement:
“The CFS.v2 ensemble mean (black dashed line) predicts a borderline El Nino to persist into Northern Hemisphere winter 2019-20”
And the IRI ensemble comes with a slightly firmer statement:
“The official CPC/IRI outlook, with an El Nino advisory, calls for a 66% chance of El Nino continuing during Jun-Aug, decreasing to 50-55% for continuing through fall and winter.”
https://web.archive.org/web/20190621085451/https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
This was updated to a neutral Winter by July.
What about this is important? I see forecasters updating forecasts. You seem to see malfeasance infecting a political climate, as if the public are influenced by ENSO forecasts or something. What are you on about?
barry says:
So, no, not ALL models.
=======================
No I said pretty much all. It was a strong consensus.
barry says:
And as I said above, the various institutes dont make predictions as far as length of the model runs, because the uncertainty increases.
======================
Thats really weak Barry. The institutes provide their predictive model runs to include in the IRI/CPC/NWS ENSO prediction. Up to summer (the mid June Report) 19 models were giving predictions through March 2020. 15 of those models were predicting values for JFM season above the threshold for El Nino. The other 5 were giving neutral values. Another 4 models did not predict beyond Fall 2019, and the remainder 4 predicted into the winter but not all the way through.
Thus 3/4’s of the models predicting through winter 2020 predicted an El Nino. Of the 8 models that didn’t predict all the way through winter 6 predicted El Nino to the end of their prediction period, 1 predicted a La Nina, and 1 predicted neutral.
barry says:
No institute announced prior to last Summer that el Nino was likely to persist through Winter, because they dont predict that far ahead owing to increasing uncertainty beyond a certain time.
========================
Last summer? Who said anything about last summer? Its still summer and I said up to summer.
And I have no idea what you are talking about institutes in such ridiculous overarching way. IRI/CPC is an institute and so are all it contributors of forcecasts. And the June report which comes in mid June before summer starts has a strong consensus of the institutes that predict that far out and beyond (they predict the first season with spring in it as well without any change in the numbers predicting El Nino). Finally the consensus of these models put the odds of El Nino in FMA 2020 at 65%.
The expert panel which includes consultation with the NWS moved the certainty down to just over 50%.
barry says:
What about this is important? I see forecasters updating forecasts. You seem to see malfeasance infecting a political climate, as if the public are influenced by ENSO forecasts or something. What are you on about?
==========================
Where did I say that. I have said the models tend to run hot and they do. IRI/CPC is very open about that and provides the statistics in their data quality analysis.
I haven’t done an indepth analysis for years on it but when I did it was mostly due to a few of the institutions models consistently running hot.
One notorious offender was James Hansen’s group. I have no idea how that relationship has changed, but perhaps its being dealt with in the fact IRI/CPC provides a model consensus and an expert consensus that significantly differ. I can’t say if thats the case but if it is I would much prefer the contract cancellation approach but that could be blocked via earmarking by Congress.
The expert panel includes civil servants who I know to be properly motivated in every contact I have had with the civil service. One of my policy/process pet peeves is when politics delegates excessive responsibility to non-representative outsiders (read special interests).
IMHO, the way it should work, and often does, is the civil service handles supervision and contracting of outside contractors with zero outside political interests putting pressure on them, that would include all political appointees, congress, or even the President. The elected people and appointee jobs are for establishing policy direction and budgets. How the work gets done is up to the career people in the civil service.
When outside panels are commissioned to advise the civil service on policy matters they should be representative of the stakeholders affected by the policy decisions. When panels of outside experts are commissioned to provide say science advice that advice should be contracted by the civil service and it should be reviewable at stakeholder panel levels and finally once again at the civil service level. Its a model that works pretty well that I am very familiar with and have perhaps 30 years of professional experience with.
I remember my first encounter with this on a road trip with civil servants I was consulting for. We stopped for refreshments and I tried to buy two civil servants I had been working with a short while their cokes at the refreshment counter. They waved me off and said it was forbidden since I was a contractor for them. They really had no role beyond an informal advisory one with their supervisors in renewing my contract and I certainly wasn’t trying to buy them off with a coke. But that was the first moment I began to realize what the civil service was about. I really couldn’t say enough positive things about just about all the civil servants I have had business with.
There is much to be said about folks working as professional servants for the government and having zero pecuniary or promotional interests outside of their jobs. There is plenty of negative stuff to be said by those that have wheedled their way into gaining responsibility for government work on behalf of the public who hold and abuse their responsibility because their loyalty is elsewhere. There are a lot of those sorts out there wheedling away.
Finally a quick look at the last 2 years of results compared to forecast and they are doing far better than several years ago. The still aren’t getting their on predicting La Ninas though they are closer.
“Thats really weak Barry. The institutes provide their predictive model runs to include in the IRI/CPC/NWS ENSO prediction”
Then why do they never announce a prediction longer than 6 months away? Why did they never mention Winter in any advisory before June?
Because they don’t announce a prediction that far ahead, for the reason I explained. You give far more credence to the model runs 8 months ahead than they do. That’s your problem, not theirs. Those model runs change every issue, especially at the far end. That’s because they are more uncertain further ahead. That’s not a “weak” reply, that’s simply the truth.
And the short-term forecasts they gave this year have been mostly spot on. Just that June advisory for Winter looks like it was wrong. So call the cops.
“Last summer? Who said anything about last summer? Its still summer and I said up to summer.”
It’s Autumn (in the Northern Hemisphere), Bill. Are you in your right mind? It’s September, fer chrissake.
You said “until” Summer. Here’s how the conversation went.
I said that if Scott predicted correctly he would “be right against pretty much all the major forecasters, which are predicting ENSO neutral through to the first quarter of next year.”
bill hunter: “…except until this summer pretty much all were predicting El Nino this winter”
I read from that, that up until this Summer, most of the institutes were predicting a Winter el Nino. So the first thing I did was check any May advisories I could find. Lo, none of the institutes made any announcement about Winter at all. So you pointed to forecast graphs. This is what you have been referring to as official government predictions. They aren’t. The official government predictions are what they actually say. And whether it’s the Japanese service, the Australian bureau, or NOAA, none of them make formal predictions 9 months or a year ahead. 6 months is the norm. If you want to believe that they think their forecast charts 12 months into the future are solid, then keep on dreaming.
If I’m wrong about you assigning nefarious (ie, politically motivated) motives to the compilers of these data sets, then I apologise.
barry says:
=============================
Then why do they never announce a prediction longer than 6 months away? Why did they never mention Winter in any advisory before June?
Because they dont announce a prediction that far ahead, for the reason I explained. You give far more credence to the model runs 8 months ahead than they do. Thats your problem, not theirs. Those model runs change every issue, especially at the far end. Thats because they are more uncertain further ahead. Thats not a weak reply, thats simply the truth.
++++++++++++++++++++++
I really no idea what you are going on about now. “Through winter” in June is not 6 months. Winter starts Dec 21, 2019 and ends on March 19, 2020. So from mid June 2019 a “through winter” forecast is 9 months out.
Most of the models run out that far. But the process is to provide two forecasts. One is a compendium of the models and percentages of likelihood for the entire 9 months. The second one is the result of an experts panel consultation using the models and other indicators that varies from expert to expert and they discuss the situation. What they recommend is whatever they agree to recommend. In June 2019 they gave a 9 month forecast.
barry says:
=============================
And the short-term forecasts they gave this year have been mostly spot on. Just that June advisory for Winter looks like it was wrong. So call the cops.
———————-
The through fall was still their April statement on the May 20 pdf you linked to. So the forecast had not been updated yet. The April forecast blew 5 of the 9 months in the forecast. You want to be generous which is fine. They work diligently on this and they will be in their own evaluation be tougher on themselves than you want to be.
barry says:
=============================
Last summer? Who said anything about last summer? Its still summer and I said up to summer.
Its Autumn (in the Northern Hemisphere), Bill. Are you in your right mind? Its September, fer chrissake.
—————–
Last I checked Barry fall starts on September 22.
barry says:
=============================
You said until Summer. Heres how the conversation went.
I read from that, that up until this Summer, most of the institutes were predicting a Winter el Nino. So the first thing I did was check any May advisories I could find. Lo, none of the institutes made any announcement about Winter at all. So you pointed to forecast graphs. This is what you have been referring to as official government predictions. They arent. The official government predictions are what they actually say.
———————-
OK so you misread what I said. “except until this summer” meant after summer started on June 21 – the forecasts started waffling on this winter. I am not sure if that was the June meeting or the July meeting, but by August they were off the rag. This year’s forecasts was consistent with previous years, they eventually get it right but some times it takes a while.
barry says:
=============================
And whether its the Japanese service, the Australian bureau, or NOAA, none of them make formal predictions 9 months or a year ahead. 6 months is the norm. If you want to believe that they think their forecast charts 12 months into the future are solid, then keep on dreaming.
—————-
Who said anything about 12 months? I have never seen an ENSO forecast longer than 9 months.
What I learned quite a few years ago was just don’t look until June. I commented many times on many blogs that if you are looking for an ENSO forecast wait until June. Sometimes it takes a little longer like this year. So I have gotten to the point I start looking in June and usually finish looking in late August or September.
Several years ago one employee engaged in this had a tremendously hilarious private blog essentially providing his own predictions panning the official predictions all in a very funny and colorful way. It was good stuff and perhaps the NWS was taking itself a little to seriously then and rumor has it they ordered him to desist. But also around the same time they began to acknowledge the spring predictability barrier. Today they are very open about it. Openness is good, very good. Especially on the part of a government agency. The feds keep getting better at it. State of California used to be the pits. Today they have made a lot of progress on openness.
barry says:
=============================
If Im wrong about you assigning nefarious (ie, politically motivated) motives to the compilers of these data sets, then I apologise.
———————-
Not sure what data set you are talking about. Mileage varies on that. James Hansen is someone I have tremendous respect for but think he is a nut. But the man is completely honest. He fiddled and fiddled with his compilation to produce GISS gridded dataset. A lot of stuff I disagreed with but I am ok with anybody who has the enough chutzpah to have outlandish ideas and be completely open about it.
I figure when you aren’t you actually think you have something to hide. To me the American way is to be innovative, open, and honest and when you are that it doesn’t matter how big of a nut you are.
I am an auditor of difficult stuff to audit. Steve McIntyre is an auditor of difficult stuff audit in a completely different field using completely different tools and the folks that withheld stuff from him simply aren’t honest people.
For chrissake take some pride in your work. If you are a criminal at least you won’t look like one.
So anybody open and honest is going to get the benefit of the doubt from me. Anybody lying, hiding, or being uncooperative isn’t. Perhaps I tend to over verbalize in this politically correct world but I was brought up with the sticks and stones meme.
“Last I checked Barry fall starts on September 22”
Not according to the meteorological definition of seasons:
https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/aboutseasons.html
NOAA definition of seasons:
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/meteorological-versus-astronomical-seasons
Australians reckon the seasons on the meteorological calendar. I see that the type used (astronomical/meteorological) is variable in the US. NOAA forecasts are done per meteorological seasons.
I repeat, you should use dates rather than seasons, as we’re on opposite sides of the world, and we use different conventions. Here is yet another confusion. NOAA’s June forecast was not about astronomical Winter.
“What I learned quite a few years ago was just don’t look until June”
NOAA advises that forecasts prior to April have a lot more uncertainty than those after. At least, I think April was the line.
“Steve McIntyre is an auditor of difficult stuff audit in a completely different field using completely different tools and the folks that withheld stuff from him simply aren’t honest people”
Steve had access all along and didn’t know it. Some of the stuff was proprietary, and came from other countries. I’d love to give you the spreadhseets from my business – I’m similar to your romanticised view of Americans in that way. But my boss would kill me.
‘Skeptics’ have had access to the raw data for years now. Most ‘skeptic’ attempts to construct their own version of the temp records corroborates the official records. Looks like the huffing and puffing was for nought.
barry says:
================
Last I checked Barry fall starts on September 22
Not according to the meteorological definition of seasons:
==============================
Thats a good one Barry. Here in the US us commoners use the astronomical calendar and the seasons start at the equinoxs and solstices.
And NOAA does use the meteorological season. I had no idea. But still the June report contained the meteorological winter in it.
I probably should have spotted that as they do just use the month names and I guess it makes it easier to communication rather than September 22 to December 21. But I had no idea you aussies were so screwed up on the seasons as a whole nation.
===================
barry says:
====================
Skeptics have had access to the raw data for years now. Most skeptic attempts to construct their own version of the temp records corroborates the official records. Looks like the huffing and puffing was for nought.
=========================
How is that possible with all the changes that have been made?
And whats the raw data? All the stations or the ones that Jones used for HC3?
Something is missing here. Why would Phil Jones say he was concerned that Steve McIntyre would find something wrong with it?
You are not aware of ‘skeptic’ attempts to make their own temperature records from raw data?
Here is an early one – Jef Condon and Roman M at the Air Vent, strong critics of the AGW consensus.
https://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/24/thermal-hammer/
“First the obvious, a skeptic, denialist, anti-science blog published a greater trend than Phil Climategate Jones. What IS up with that?…
There are high trends from GHCN, so high in fact that anyone who questions Phil Climategate Jones temp trends will need to show some evidence. Certainly Phil is an ass, but it no longer seems to me that he has ‘directly’ exaggerated temp trends one bit….
Several skeptics will dislike this post. They are wrong, in my humble opinion. While winning the public “policy” battle outright, places pressure for a simple unified message, the data is the data and the math is the math. We”re stuck with it, and this result. In my opinion, it is a better method.”
Then the Berkley effort, after criticising the official temp records.
“Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics….
From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect.”
http://berkeleyearth.org/about/
The data base has 5 times as many sites (weather stations) as GHCN. This project also resulted in a global temp record with a higher trend than the official version.
Anthony Watts has a paper published (Fall et al 2011) critically examining the US temp record, which he had claimed for years was biased warm. Much of the paper focused on biases in the minimum and maximum temperature trends at sites with different ratings, finding opposite signed biases between different classes of stations (well-sited to poor-sited), and on the question of diurnal range. This paper rated stations CRN1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, with 1 and 2 being high quality. But when it came to the mean temp record for the US – the one that the public is familiar with and everyone uses in these semi-popular debates:
“…the differing trends in maximum and minimum temperature among classes cause the average temperature trends to be almost identical, especially for the fully adjusted data. In this case, no matter what CRN class is used, the estimated mean temperature trend for the period 1979–2008 is about 0.32°C/decade…
Homogeneity adjustments are necessary and tend to reduce the trend differences, but statistically significant differences remain for all but average temperature trends…”
Anthony Watts and co discovered that homogeneity adjustments were necessary, and that the mean temp record for the US was probably right, as it matched the trends for the sites they determined were best.
The above is what I mean when I say ‘skeptics’ have access to raw data (and in the Berkeley case have collated their own data set), and that they have largely corroborated the official records by doing some serious work.
The huffing and puffing seems to have been for nought.
“But I had no idea you aussies were so screwed up on the seasons as a whole nation.”
I am thinking the same thing about you ‘Murcans.
JMA model outputs (like the others) can run as far as a year ahead or more, but their official predictions don’t run out that far, because the models become more uncertain the further ahead they look. JMA’s official announcements just prior to June would not have included Winter estimates, like the others.
barry, please stop trolling.
Lewis guignard
“One can only wonder about those who want it colder, more ice more snow, shorter growing seasons, starvation.”
Did you ever read a comment written by a strange guy nicknamed ‘SAMURAI’ ? Or people like McRae?
These guys, Mr Guignard, are the problem you are talking about.
They are all the time telling about imminent Grand Solar Minimum, Global Cooling being far more probable than Warming, etc etc etc.
*
“What does get in their heads?”
No idea, I can’t go into.
But what’s going in my head I can tell you.
My humble guess is that if ice melting off Greenland continues like it does since at least 20 years (see GRACE output for 2002-2016), we will, here in Western Europe, suffer of something far worse than a few ridiculous sea rise centimeters.
I suspect that the huge amount of salt-free water will sooner or later disturb the thermohaline circulation such that the Gulf Stream will retreat back to the Tropics near Africa, what would mean Siberian winters down to Spain and even Morocco. No thanks!
But i am near 70, and I very probably will not be confronted with such a situation. Our grand-children certainly will be.
Bindidon, the grand-children don’t have to fear climate change.
They have to fear incompetence, malfeasance, dishonesty, perversion and corruption.
Nothing new.
JD…”They have to fear incompetence, malfeasance, dishonesty, perversion and corruption”.
Had to look up malfeasance. Good word. Fits Obama, NOAA, GISS, Had-crut well.
And yet oddly you can’t give even the slightest bit of evidence for any of this claimed malfeasance.
Odd….
David, please stop trolling.
Bindidon show me the data demonstrating that more than 600 gt of ice are melting off of Greenland every year. That is how much snow is falling, so. As discussed on the previous thread, the GRACE data is showing a summation of gross summer ice losses over many years. The 600gt of yearly snow added to the system is nowhere to be found on the GRACE data. What is your explanation for that???
If I’m right that Greenland has been adding ice every year even during the 1980-2016 warming trend, we are most definitely on the slow downslope towards the next inevitable ice age still, and the increased melt at the ocean is a sign of mass gains, not mass losses.
Scott R
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18_E-mr9ud5G1PnpBoOGvUWCCNlbyKmgR/view
Don’t you see that the mass goes down and up every year, and that the average difference between the yearly downs and ups is 281 Gt?
It seems to me that you do not want to see that more goes out than in, because it does not fit to your egocentric narrative.
I will ask the Promice group at DMI when I have time to do.
I don’t know why there is no Greenland ice sheet data like there is one for Arctic ice volume:
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icethickness/txt/IceVol.txt
No, sorry: was! The data has been dropped away.
I downloaded it so many times!
Bindidon,
The GRACE data is not measuring the situation on the Greenland ice sheet like you think it is. The gross mass added in the winter (which lasts 9 months) is 600 gt. Do you dispute that? You can find that information here by clicking on the acc tab:
http://polarportal.dk/en/greenland/surface-conditions/
Study the GRACE data carefully. The gross, seasonal mass add is missing. It is showing a summation of gross losses at the coast.
My theory is that GRACE can not see the mass added to the system. This is because the snow that falls immediately displaces an equal amount of snow underneath (pushed down the hill) because the system has already reached it’s saturation point.
GRACE is essentially measuring a flow rate at the coast but it is being treated like a measurement of absolute mass value when they create this ridiculous summation chart to brain wash everyone.
Scott R wrote:
The gross, seasonal mass add is missing
The first line of that Web page says: “The map illustrates how the surface of the Greenland Ice Sheet gains and loses mass on a daily basis”
GAINS….
David, please stop trolling.
How much of the snow is evaporating?
Blown off the island into the ocean?
David, please stop trolling.
binny…”They are all the time telling about imminent Grand Solar Minimum, Global Cooling being far more probable than Warming, etc etc etc.”
What’s your problem with that? It appears the Little Ice Age was related to solar minima.
I certainly am not hoping for another LIA but I’d like to see an end to this AGW nonsense. Of course, even if proof-positive is presented to an alarmist that AGW is wrong, he/she will claim AGW theory predicted that.
What would it take to convince you the theory is wrong?
Gordon,
According to the data provided by Dr. Spencer (on whose website you post your tripe), we are in the 11th year of a global superwarming trend that erases the so called “pause” and has no precedent in observational data in terms of 10 year trends.
If you can’t speak factually, please silence yourself.
M
M Stiller, maybe the 11th year of a warming trend is not very significant.
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm
M Stiller says: we are in the 11th year of a global superwarming trend that erases the so called pause and has no precedent in observational data in terms of 10 year trends.
=======================
Yep 11 year trends are likely solar cycle trends. Not sure what you mean by unprecedented. . . .you mean unprecedented in UAH history?
I am having some concerns about UAH arctic ocean warming rates. They seem quite high and are unaccompanied by additional sea ice extent loss over the past 12 years. Perhaps simply more radiation is going to space because of ice loss but its not pumping positive feedback as expected by actually warming the Arctic surface ocean.
I once plotted Had*cr data in a series of 10 year trends on a graph and two peak trends reached .4degC/decade trends matched solar cycles 21 and 23. (UAH 11yr =.32) Cycle 22 only reached .22degC/decade but its peak coincided with Mt Pinatubo’s eruption. Each of the valleys in the graph coincided with the minimums of solar cycles after cycles 20 through 23 and either was a negative trend or a near zero positive trend. the one most distant from zero was the minimum following cycle 23 in the heydays of Phil Jones running adjustments over there. But even that one was down to about .02c/decade. After a 2010 El Nino peak it went below zero and then the record was discontinued.
I haven’t repeated the effort since but your post is giving me some motivation to do so as I haven’t seen what the peak is for cycle 24 yet. Its interesting I got the best results out of 10 and 11 year trends. Suggests a major solar influence. However since the range was effectively -.1 to +.4 it aligns well to an underlying .15 warming trend.
So should there be any surprises that an 11 year cycle erased a flat trend that extended across cycle 23 from minimum to beyond minimum in cycle 24. The trend was flat from 1996 to 2014. Now we have an 11 year trend from the 2008 minimum to some point beyond the cycle 24 maximum, leaving the question what will be the trend after we declare the cycle 24 minimum? Not sure I can contain my curiosity that long though.
mstiller…”According to the data provided by Dr. Spencer (on whose website you post your tripe), we are in the 11th year of a global superwarming trend that erases the so called pause and has no precedent in observational data in terms of 10 year trends”.
***********
see posts below for September 6th.
GR wrote:
What would it take to convince you the theory is wrong?
It can’t happen, since the evidence shows AGW is happening. It’s a fact. It’d be like asking what would it take to convince you the Earth is flat.
David, please stop trolling.
Bindidon says: But i am near 70, and I very probably will not be confronted with such a situation. Our grand-children certainly will be.
——————————–
Playing the role of auditor here. We have what 281gtons of ice melt being measured from the coastal frontage of glaciers running of the Greenland ice sheet. And when we extrapolate this melting out into the future where our grand-childrens will be the older generation hanging around we have great concern.
So noting a member of the National Academy of Science, a true Kingmaker with hands on control of obscene amounts of scientific funding monies made a prediction in 2007 that the glacier Qori Kalis would be gone in about 5 years. Of course that was the last report he wrote on that despite his continued annual visits to the glacier. Why? Well the dang thing wasn’t melting is why.
How can that be? Well you know mountains have tree lines, why? The answer is that melting gets tougher the further up the glacier you go because it gets colder quickly. So how did our NAS member consider that in his prediction? Answer? Well I guess it was an oversight. Well today the glacier is still there. Did melt a little this past El Nino because it tends to shrink in El Ninos and grow in La Nina due apparently to the proximity of the glacier to that part of the ocean. Where did he consider that? Again this is a NAS member.
So where does that put academic science? These guys mostly spend way too much time at wine and cheese affairs kissing up to big university donors, schmoozing widowed dowagers, and probably far too little time actually learning their craft. Instead most of the stuff they put together has a hand wringing appeal for obvious reasons.
But hey all that is expected is some publications and who better to smooth the path to publication than a wealthy donor with a grant earmarked for your cause?
Lets move to Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, a longterm Chairman of the IPCC. Runs an Institute in India. Many years ago I looked into what the institute does. Seems one of its largest projects was growing exotic hybrid Roses. Every year the capping event was the India Rose Festival. What better place to meet wealthy widowed dowagers with fat checkbooks? What better way than to enchant them with than a carefully hybridized exotic flower?
In keeping with that skill a Pachauri sideline was as an author of a book where the protagonist was a gigolo. LMAO!
So my question is what factor in your mind have you applied to the idea that melting the Greenland glacier would require an increase in temperature on the order of about 20 degrees C (from my feeble knowledge of glacier science) just to maintain the 281gtons of melt to the top of the glacier? And how does that affect your calculations regarding the fate of your grand-children?
Have you thought about it?
This will destroy the CO2 temperature control knobers once and for all , unfortunately it will take a number of years to fully play out.
The forecast for the next solar cycle says it will be the weakest of the last 200 years. The maximum of this next cycle could be 30 to 50% lower than the most recent one. The results show that the next cycle will start in 2020 and reach its maximum in 2025.
Eben
Do you have some valuable info (i.e., not from the Zharkova corner)?
I have only this up to now:
https://www.weather.gov/news/190504-sun-activity-in-solar-cycle
The panel has high confidence that the coming cycle should break the trend of weakening solar activity seen over the past four cycles.
We expect Solar Cycle 25 will be very similar to Cycle 24: another fairly weak cycle, preceded by a long, deep minimum, said panel co-chair Lisa Upton, Ph.D., solar physicist with Space Systems Research Corp. The expectation that Cycle 25 will be comparable in size to Cycle 24 means that the steady decline in solar cycle amplitude, seen from cycles 21-24, has come to an end and that there is no indication that we are currently approaching a Maunder-type minimum in solar activity.
Again: changes by natural factors like the sun say absolutely nothing about anthropogenic climate change.
You seem to think if the global average temperature goes down a little it will disprove AGW. It won’t in any way.
David Appell says:
Again: changes by natural factors like the sun say absolutely nothing about anthropogenic climate change.
You seem to think if the global average temperature goes down a little it will disprove AGW. It wont in any way.
++++++++++++++++++++
David always seeking the lazy way out. How about proving AGW? Proving a negative is usually impossible.
Did you understand my reply? It doesn’t look like it. How is explaining the difference between natural and anthropogenic factors “taking the lazy way out?”
David I understood your reply. You said if average temperature goes down a little I think it will disprove AGW.
I merely retorted that science as I see it, its the duty of the proponent to prove AGW.
I have no duty to disprove what I don’t believe is a threat to civilization. If that were my duty should I be out there working on arguments against the notion the world is going to get eaten by ants?
David, please stop trolling.
There is no anthropogenic climate change and you know it.
What a convincing argument.
David, please stop trolling.
Before global warming/climate change/climate emergency destroys the world, will it be better to live in Canada?
Ie:
“August 28, 2019 As the fear of climate change reaches hysteric levels, the government and media are suggesting that Canadians must accept “climate refugees” in the future.”
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/05/establishment-preparing-for-climate-refugees-to-come-to-canada/
Is there any country at the present time, which has a worse climate than Canada?
Can anyone make a list of countries that in comparison, Canada has better climate?
Does Canada have better climate than Japan?
France?
India?
Mexico?
Etc?
Now when “it” destroys the World, Canada being part of the world, will also be destroyed. But before the world is destroyed one could imagine some countries are going to be destroyed, first.
It seems the Canadians are imagining they will destroyed after other countries.
So assume France is destroyed before Canada, and so the people in France could escape by moving to Canada.
Or obviously, if Canada was destroyed before France, the French could/would not be moving to Canada.
So, if France or some other country is destroyed before Canada, then they could leave their country so they could safely live in Canada.
How long could be safe in Canada while the other countries are being destroyed by global warming/climate change/climate emergency?
A few months, years, decades, or centuries?
No country has been destroyed by the global warming/climate change/climate emergency, but if some countries are adversely effected, which will be the first countries And which will be the last countries which survive the longest?
And will Canada actually be one countries which survives the longest?
lol! You seriously advocating for people to move to Canada? Other than southern Ontario, it is VERY cold there in the winter with a very short growing season. Were you paying attention last winter because Canada was breaking all time cold records. The GSM will cause people to move out of Canada if anything. My relatives on my dad’s side actually came from Canada, attempted to farm there before moving to the US.
–Scott R says:
September 6, 2019 at 9:16 AM
lol! You seriously advocating for people to move to Canada?–
No.
I am and have been seriously advocating, we have space exploration, which allow people to live on Mars.
I think Mars might be a better place to live as compared to Canada- for some people. And it could better for people living on Planet Earth if some people were living on Mars. But not just living on Mars. I think it might be that Mars, could be the first planet people might live on. Or it’s more of a question of where to start. And in terms of numbers, something like L-5 colonies could have more people living in them.
And I don’t think that living on Mars and elsewhere, is related to doing something about over population on Earth. I think there is not problem with too many people living Earth.
But living someplace other than Earth, is related to doing something related to Earth’s potential problem with getting cheap energy in the future.
So, over populated of Earth, not a problem, allowing people on Earth to get a lot more and a lot cheaper electrical power, is major part of it of why we should explore space, so as to determine if living on Mars is viable for some people [say less than few million people within a century- or less population than Canada.
“Other than southern Ontario, it is VERY cold there in the winter with a very short growing season.”
Well whole idea of global warming is that Canada would get warmer and have longer growing seasons. But obviously global warming doesn’t increase the amount sunlight reaching Canada- and btw, Mars has more sunlight than Canada [or Europe}.
“Were you paying attention last winter because Canada was breaking all time cold records. The GSM will cause people to move out of Canada if anything. My relatives on my dad’s side actually came from Canada, attempted to farm there before moving to the US.”
This is related to my question. Climate change vs Global warming might make Canada a worst place to live then it is now. But Canadian govt seems to suggest that people {from somewhere} should flee to Canada and if we don’t get global warming and instead get climate change/ climate emergency, then what to say Canada might be the first country, people might want to flee from.
Or how safe is living in Canada?
Is it safest place to run to.
gbaikie,
I see… so you were just starting a conversation about it… not necessarily advocating it.
I also would love to see a human colony on Mars from a purely scientific study standpoint, but, as you know, such a colony would come at a great expense and is not currently self-sustainable. You can run some number to see just how much money we are talking. At $10,000 a pound to just put something into space let alone send it to Mars the costs really add up.
4 adults = 180*4 pounds = 720 pounds
food consumed per year per adult times 4 adults = 2000 pounds*4 = 8000 pounds
Total weight of just people and food = 8720
@ $10,000 per pound you have $87,200,000. That’s including nothing else. No shelter, no science, no nothing. The average family income in the us is $61822. Global it’s closer to $14,000.
We are 1000+ times less efficient then we would need to be to live on Mars sustainably at this time. It is so far away from reality that spending a lot of time going over this in any more detail is really not worth it to me. Any structure you build to create a living space on Mars to farm would have to be shipped @ $10,000 a pound. It is simply not financially viable.
It is reasonable to say there are places on earth that share a similar financial / mathematical reality with this. Like the top of the Greenland ice sheet, or Antarctica. Basically anywhere one can not grow food. We have bases there for scientific study and that is a value to humans everywhere. You also have some tourism value there… but as a sustainable community no way.
Canada really is on the cusp of what is sustainable for humans to self-sustain. That is why so few people live there, and many that do live in the southern most areas or close to the coasts.
“I also would love to see a human colony on Mars from a purely scientific study standpoint, but, as you know, such a colony would come at a great expense and is not currently self-sustainable. You can run some number to see just how much money we are talking. At $10,000 a pound to just put something into space let alone send it to Mars the costs really add up.”
It is about $2000 per kg or about 1000 per pound of payload put into Low Earth orbit {LEO}.
The world putting 100 payloads per year in some orbit or escape trajectories. A lot of payloads are put in Geostationary orbit {GEO} and there is about 2000 satellites in Earth orbit {LEO, GEO, and high earth orbits].
The CEO of SpaceX, Elon Musk, is planning and is launching satellite which are going total around thousand. Musk wants to live on Mars and is planning and building rockets to get launch cost down to about $500 per kg to LEO. And thinks he needs it much cheaper this this in order to live on Mars {and is planning on doing it]. SpaceX currently has cheapest launch on the planet and is a dominate launch provider of all satellites launched into space. He wants to far more dominate, but we also have CEO of Amazon, plans to build a rocket as big as Saturn V rocket, which is largest rocket made, and which got humans landing on Moon and returning to Earth- Apollo Program.
So both Musk, Bezos, and NASA are trying to make rockets as large or larger the the Saturn V, and both Musk, and Bezos are going to make them reusable rockets {Saturn V was not a reusable rocket}.
So Musk has been reusing the Falcon- 9 and Falcon Heavy first stages and Bezos has reusing his New Shepard, a suborbital rocket {small rocket unable to get to orbit}.
Bezos is more interested in the Moon, and Musk is coming around to becoming more interested in the Moon {but still wants to live on Mars}.
I am not talking about government colonies on Mars, I mean towns on Mars, and like any town on Earth, they would be “self-sustainable”.
But before this could happen, I think Mars has to be explored and to explore Mars, NASA needs bases in Mars. And such bases are not “self-sustainable” in same sense that International Space Station {ISS} is not “self-sustainable”. Or ISS costs about 5 billion per year to US tax payer. And Mars settlements would have zero cost to US or any other countries tax payers.
But the exploration in order to determine if and where on Mars there could be Mars settlement will cost to US tax payer for program than could take more than 2 decades and cost about 50 billion per decade {5 billion per year} to US tax payers.
But as US government is saying, first we going to explore the Moon.
What would want for lunar exploration, is a lot robotic lunar exploration follow with crewed landing on the lunar polar regions.
And apparently we going do less robotic and have crew landing sooner, by about 2024.
Or I would spent more money and time with robotic lunar mission and I would have had NASA develop an operational LOX depot in LEO, which would have used for Lunar exploration and Mars exploration.
But mainly idea is to determine if there is commercially mineable lunar water in the lunar polar region.
And whether there is commercially mineable lunar water would depend on what is found during lunar exploration program- or business with the data, would or would not decide to invest in such an enterprise.
And basically same applies to Mars, people would decide if and where they would live on Mars, depending on results of the NASA Mars exploration.
“4 adults = 180*4 pounds = 720 pounds
food consumed per year per adult times 4 adults = 2000 pounds*4 = 8000 pounds
Total weight of just people and food = 8720
@ $10,000 per pound you have $87,200,000. Thats including nothing else. No shelter, no science, no nothing. The average family income in the us is $61822. Global its closer to $14,000.”
Food doesn’t weigh much, water added to food, weighs more, but for food and water you about right- I would say on low side, and Elon Musk might say it’s on high side.
Musk plan is the have cost per seat to Mars, about 1/2 million dollars.
I say cost of seat is not very important. It’s the cost of water on Mars which is important. And also electrical power on Mars will be high.
So I think water mining on moon is important aspect related to Mars settlements. BUT a NASA Mars exploration doesn’t need lunar water mining. And strongly against idea that NASA would mine lunar water. And against idea NASA mining anything on Moon or Mars- mining mars air, might be good idea related to NASA Mars exploration program- one send robotic mission that can mine Mars air without humans on Mars starting the process- crew arrive when some of Mars air has already been mined.
Mining lunar water, allows lunar water to be shipped to High Earth orbit, where people going to Mars can use it, to get to Mars. Also Lunar LOX, can shipped to high Earth orbit and be used to get to Mars.
Or you didn’t include cost of LOX brought from Earth, Lunar LOX and lunar water would be cheaper.
“It is reasonable to say there are places on earth that share a similar financial / mathematical reality with this. Like the top of the Greenland ice sheet, or Antarctica. Basically anywhere one can not grow food. We have bases there for scientific study and that is a value to humans everywhere. You also have some tourism value there but as a sustainable community no way.”
You talking about bases. You need base for the exploration part.
Btw, I would have crew exploring Mars, and they largely control robotic mars missions.
Would have lots of robotic activity and less than dozen crew ever on Mars for explorational purposes. I would start with 3 crew, and build up base to handle 6 crew, and for first 10 years, at most have 6 crew on Mars surface at any time.
“Canada really is on the cusp of what is sustainable for humans to self-sustain. That is why so few people live there, and many that do live in the southern most areas or close to the coasts.”
Canada rich country, which could a lot richer, if not for governmental policies.
On Mars socialism is luxury, Martians are unlikely waste wealth on, instead Mars government could add wealth.
I say, the Moon is Earth’s Hong Kong.
Mars also could be similar a Hong Kong.
Both have low gravity, which useful to a spacefaring civilization.
On Mars, socialism will be a NECESSITY for the first few centuries (at least). They will share everything, have universal health care, and their government will provide basic services like oxygen, heat and water.
David Appell says:
On Mars, socialism will be a NECESSITY for the first few centuries (at least). They will share everything, have universal health care, and their government will provide basic services like oxygen, heat and water.
=========================
Yep socialism works pretty well for small groups. Even the Kibbutz in Israel work pretty well. Or at least it is as long as the option is available to leave or the others to get rid of a member.
But on Mars it might be hard to leave the group!
–David Appell says:
September 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM
But on Mars it might be hard to leave the group!–
Yes, socialism on Mars is Mars as prison planet.
I don’t want no prison planet.
Though one could have prisons on the Moon.
The Moon also be good place to house the UN. So somewhere around lunar equator, you have prison and next door could the UN, also put near a Starport and store radioactive waste.
Sequence: put radioactive waste at equator region, make starport, put UN near it, then build prisons.
More civilized populations could live in the Lunar polar regions.
UN could work on improving technology to store electrical power from solar energy for use in the long lunar night.
Though there are lot’s Mars fans want to go to Mars in order to get stuck on Mars in some socialist Utopia.
But I think large advantage of Mars, is it’s easy to leave or easy to export stuff to the rest of the solar system.
And a future of being stuck on Mars, seems rather pointless, to me.
Our current problem is being stuck on Earth, and I would like to get to point where anyone can leave Earth- if they want to.
And one reason to leave Earth could be to get a higher paying job- as we will have illegal immigrants looking for a better job, they can legally leave Earth. And they don’t need to go to Mars, they go to Earth orbits, Venus, Mercury, or outer planets.
But for anyone to leave Earth, it might take as much as century- unless they have high skills and are highly motivated.
So, in terms of within a few decades, if going to Mars, one would spend about same costs higher education plus buying a expensive house on Earth. Or generally, mostly restricted to upper middle class, and younger people looking for challenges and different opportunities.
Generally, it seems it will be harder to go to Mars, as compared to when people went to America before 18th century.
But after 100 years of start of Mars settlements, it will as easy to go the America in 21 century {and without the waiting lists and all the paperwork}.
“Yep socialism works pretty well for small groups. Even the Kibbutz in Israel work pretty well. Or at least it is as long as the option is available to leave or the others to get rid of a member.”
Wiki:
“Kibbutzim grew and flourished in the 1930s and 1940s. In 1922, there were 700 people living on kibbutzim in Palestine. By 1927, the number had risen to 2,000. When World War II erupted, 24,105 people were living on 79 kibbutzim, comprising 5% of the Jewish population of Mandate Palestine.In 1950, the figures went up to 65,000, accounting for 7.5% of the population. In 1989, the kibbutz population peaked at 129,000. By 2010, the number decreased to about 100,000; the number of kibbutzim in Israel was 270”
It seems one want the size of Mars town which grow to 100,000 people. Or not location which doesn’t has enough water to support more 100,000 people living there [for a century}.
More water, more people using water, would lower unit cost of Mars water. So can start out with 100 people within first 5 years, but the plan would be rapid population growth. And more growth, cheaper transportation cost to Mars. But people scattered all over Mars with lots of small groups, is ineffective and will have predictable results of lots of ghost towns and lots of dead people. It’s a bad way to “explore Mars”.
Socialism is hardly a prison. Several democratic socialist countries are among the best countries in the world.
Our current problem is being stuck on Earth
I don’t see why that’s a problem.
David Appell says:
September 6, 2019 at 7:49 PM
But on Mars it might be hard to leave the group!
———————-
Yes in Israeli Kibbutzim a member can choose to leave or if he isn’t working up to expectations he can be directed to leave.
In world or national socialism the options become more limited and typically either its a slave camp, a reeducation camp, or a bullet to the back of the head.
Many democratic socialist countries are among the best and most prosperous in the world — Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, Germany….
David Appell says:
Many democratic socialist countries are among the best and most prosperous in the world Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Canada, Germany.
————————–
None of those are socialist countries David. All seven are listed as capitalist countries. . . .including 4 sweden, netherlands, canada, and denmark are listed as being more capitalistic than the United States.
All seven are ranked in the top half of most capitalistic nations in the world.
–David Appell says:
September 6, 2019 at 9:29 PM
Socialism is hardly a prison. Several democratic socialist countries are among the best countries in the world.–
Why does socialism have to make lousy prisons.
Prisons could have stripper bars.
Sex robots.
It could be quite fun to live in prison- for some people.
Think of drug addicts, if they could go to nice prison, it
could improve their lives.
One make sure they don’t hurt themselves or over dose.
They could find better drugs which are more enjoyable.
But not everyone wants to live in prison- and some people want to use their freedom to make a better world.
Socialism is about providing minimal living standards to most people- a prison. A zoo for people.
People being the play things of the elites running the zoo.
Elites which might want to change baby diapers, but want children they give rules to, and tell them what to do.
–David Appell says:
September 6, 2019 at 9:30 PM
Our current problem is being stuck on Earth
I dont see why thats a problem.–
Well, that wishing for the extinction of all life on Earth.
It’s possible we are the only life in this Universe.
Don’t you think that is highly irresponsible?
Now, I think there probably 1000 civilizations in your Milky Way Galaxy- and billions in our Universe.
And our galaxy is teeming with life which has not become spacefaring
species.
But either way, I think humans should become spacefaring.
And also think we probably will become spacefaring within thousands of years. I just think we should do it now, rather than later.
It is possible that human could never become spacefaring- it’s possible, though not likely.
But there thousands of people working for NASA and millions connected with space programs, would like do something regarding the goal of becoming spacefaring.
I think it’s sad, that they are getting what they have working for, dying of old age before their life work and dreams are not realized. Victims of a incompetent bureaucracies who distracted and ill serving their mission.
Or from other side of it, US citizens are paying about 20 billion dollars a year in order for NASA to explore space. And like most people the NASA management suffering under all kinds of stupid ideas.
Their skill at PR is abysmal. And trying to do the wrong things. NASA was never in the rocket business, and they insist they are. They imagine they should mine, and they are clueless at mining. Etc, etc. Basically spoiled brats.
The basic problem is they might say they are public servants, but they aren’t. They have military thing, where they promote the idiots in order to get them away from the real work. Or in military one can really good leadership, but also have a lot bad leadership, and the bad leadership makes harder to get anything done.
The unaccountable leadership is someone like James Hanson- more interested in climate change than doing his job. But it’s not like James Hanson was the worst example- just a visible clown, who obviously misused his position in NASA.
But it’s good the James Hanson got out of NASA, and then finally figure out that Nuclear energy is only way to solve CO2 emission. I guess he had more time, and allowed him more time to look at the problem.
Anyhow, NASA is being paid to explore the Moon and then to explore Mars. They were told to do this by Bush. They should have long before Bush, have figured this out. Anyways, now they doing it, and people at NASA want to it, and American People [who have always strongly supported NASA] want them to do it.
gbaikie says:
People being the play things of the elites running the zoo.
Elites which might want to change baby diapers, but want children they give rules to, and tell them what to do.
————————-
Careful now. I think David might be getting a little confused.
lou maytrees…”There is no scientific study on this planet that shows the LIA was 1C or 2C below normal. You simply made that up. Or maybe you can show proof? ”
********
Come on, Lou, there’s plenty of good scientific information out there on the LIA. If you prefer to believe that a trace gas can cause that kind of warming then maybe you could supply the proof.
Re the LIA…
http://www.co2science.org/subject/l/summaries/asialia.php
Furthermore, there is documented evidence that glaciers in Europe expanded immensely during the LIA. Some claim the colder temps were a local phenomenon but glaciers in the Alps don’t just expand right across a valley and wipe out a town. It would take a significant cooling to do that.
gordon robertson.
Your co2science (lol-not) link proves you wrong in paragraph 3 plus does not mention a -1*C or -2*C difference from the norm anywhere in the article.
Paragraph 3 – “… determined the mean temperature of the MWP was more elevated above the mean temperature of the past century than the mean temperature of the LIA was reduced below that of the past century.”
Or as you might say, ‘the norm’.
You should try to comprehend what you are reading and then linking to gordon.
Then in paragraph 4 it states the difference between the warmth of the MWP was a +1.5*C difference from the low temperature of the LIA.
Try to comprehend gordon. That means there was a 1 and a half degree difference between the highest temp and lowest temp. Try and use a baseline to figure that out gord.
Add paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 together and your -1*C -2*C propaganda goes down in flames by your own link. Ouch!
Maybe some of you in the US are aware of the “blob”. A patch of warm water in the north east Pacific that has been there for going on 5 years. I’m seeing something develop now that could finally put an end to this formation and cool the western US in the heart of AGW land. (another haha moment) Check out the departures over the last 7 days:
https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/cdas-sflux_ssta7diff_global_1.png
The western USA has been stubbornly warm for years, definitely lagging the Midwest on the drops we have started to see, particularly in the wintertime.
Anyways… too soon to know for sure, but it’s on my upwelling watch list.
Scott R
” Im seeing something develop now that could finally put an end to this formation and cool the western US in the heart of AGW land. (another haha moment) Check out the departures over the last 7 days…”
OVER THE LAST SEVEN DAYS!
That is the typical Scott R stuff. Are you serious?
What about you going into the page below:
https://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/map/temp_map.html
and moving back month by month. And on each incoming month, you check again.
When it starts looking like your tidbits-one-week-pic, then come back here, and tell us what you have seen…
haha! I did give the disclaimer that this is too soon to know for sure and only on the watch list.
Maybe I’ll eventually be known as the human barometer around here. If I don’t speak it, cred will never be earned. lol
TEN BASIC TRUTHS THAT DEBUNK MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING AND MAN-MADE CLIMATE CHANGE
1. Since the 1920s, trends in extreme weather events show neither higher frequency nor higher severity (as measured by major hurricane hits on Florida – the hot bed of hurricane hits). Yes, they cause more damage and are more costly because weve put more infrastructure in their way in the last 100 years.
2. The average global temperature over the last 100+ years has risen by only 0.9 degrees centigrade. At least half of that rise occurred BEFORE our ubiquitous use of motorized vehicles, planes, machinery, etc. and BEFORE we were harvesting and using copious amounts of hydrocarbons (aka fossil fuels) to meet our energy needs. Roughly the same temperature rise before and after the declared cause existed.
3. The oceans are not rising any faster than they have been for at least the last 300 years or so – since the beginning of the end of the little ice age, well before anthropogenic generation of CO2. Oceans have risen about 19 centimeters in all of the last century. That is no cause for alarm.
4. Whatever the capacity for CO2 to trap heat, that impact diminishes on a logarithmic scale, because the infrared wavelengths (heat) that CO2 absorbs is essentially at saturation levels already. It is scientifically reasonable then to expect the worst impact should occur at the early stages of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations. The impact that increasing CO2 has thus far had on global temperatures has at worst been very small, and real-world physics tells us that future impacts will be even smaller. I say at worst, because no one, not even our brightest meteorologists and physicists, can definitively quantify the relationship between CO2 and atmospheric temperature.
5. The world consumes about 100 million barrels of crude oil each and every day, and this consumption has been steadily rising since we first discovered it and learned how to use it. One might think wed be cooking by now if mankinds use of hydrocarbons was as sinister as the alarmists would have us believe, especially given that earlier increases in CO2 levels are more impactful than later increases. Since 1980 (nearly 40 years ago), when we were first able to measure lower atmospheric temperatures accurately via satellite and without earth surface interferences, the month-on-month average lower atmospheric temperature has increased by about 0.31 degrees centigrade. That is no where near being catastrophic in nature.
6. Water vapour is not only a far better absorber of infrared (heat) but it is generally present at atmospheric concentrations several magnitudes higher than that of CO2 at typical summer temperatures. Why isnt water vapour given multiple times the demon status of CO2?
7. The only indication of future catastrophic temperatures are the results of computer models. Without these models, wed have only the indication that the global temperatures are still fluctuating well within the bounds of normal and natural historical ranges. No fear in this climate reality – the ONLY climate reality. Climate is changing, just as it always has for millions of years.
8. These computer models were designed in the first place to prove that anthropogenic global warming is a legitimate fear. In essence, they mimic an assumed mathematical relationship between CO2 concentration and atmospheric temperature. Their purpose has never been to research causes of changes in weather, changes in global temperatures, nor of changes in climate.
9. The predictions of these models have thus far been demonstrated to be significantly over-stated, when actual temperatures are compared to model-predicted temperatures. They dont even agree with each other.
10. These models are predicting steeper and steeper future temperature rises as they are adjusted to correctly reflect actual historical and current data while remaining consistent with their predicted higher global temperatures in the future. Fudge might be a better word than adjust? It occurs to me that this steepening curve might be the impetus behind the continually escalating fear-mongering.
Have you ever heard an alarmist explain how CO2 can do what they claim it will do? Ever ask yourself Why not? We might also consider asking how the above 10 truths can be rationally reconciled with the claims of the alarmists. After all, arent we entitled to these answers? Especially given that our governments (Canadian) are planning to tax us to Kingdom Come with carbon taxes and alternative-energy subsidies, while destroying Canadas hydrocarbon industry and thereby many other dependent enterprises. All this self destruction in the name of setting a good example for the rest of the world? And then when we consider the ridiculous and arrogant notion that we can legislate climate change, thats really stretching things. Even if all of Canada was to stop burning hydrocarbons completely, it would have negligible impact on global consumption, and zero impact on global temperatures or climate change. Were a bit player in the grand scheme of things. This entire fiasco is mind boggling and disgraceful.
Russ Babcock
One thing is sure: this one guy you don’t seem to be:
https://people.csiro.au/B/R/Russ-Babcock
As opposed to what he uses to write, your comment is long, too long, much too long!
But, as opposed to what you very probably thought just before posting it, it doesn’t tell anything new. Jesus, what an old blah blah!
If I were you, I would try to put the article I link below piece by piece into Google’s translator, I’m too lazy to do it. (Hard job: Adobe does inbetween everything to prevent us from copying pdf files):
http://documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf?sequence=1
My native tongue is French, so I had no problem in reading it.
I hope you manage to understand what these two guys try to explain when they show how CO2 will, in the next decades, help H2O in peu a peu invading the atmospheric window.
Do you understand what they mean?
But when I reread your comment, I’m afraid the link might be hopeless.
Hey Bindindon,
“Jesus, what an old blah blah!” you say.
That’s your well-thought-out rebuttal? – to my long, too long, much too long summary of 10 valid truths that would cause any intelligent person to at least wonder about the credibility of the man-made global warming BS.
Instead of “Jesus”, why not “Ya but”? Or god forbid, why not intelligently pick apart the 10 basic truths or at least attempt to reconcile them to the AGW narrative, one-by-one? Not mean enough for you? Not within your capacity? Then why not just consider it being a great day for you, having learned something new?
Babcock
“Instead of Jesus, why not Ya but?”
Simply because I had to read such comments since years and years.
Years ago indeed I replied to some them, earned not much more than silence or insult.
Sorry, but it has become tiresome a bit.
Please manage to read and understand Dufresne’s paper instead of whining.
Or alternatively, you might simply stay in enjoying ignorants’ applause above… means much less work for you.
Bindidon is too tired to responsibly comment, yet he can ramble endlessly with his pseudoscience and personal attacks.
Nothing new.
YOU of all people have no right to complain about personal attacks. They’re all you do here. Nothing else.
I suspect it’s to cover up a lack of scientific knowledge, of being unable to follow the scientific arguments, let alone to respond to them.
WRONG DA.
We Skeptics have plenty of right to complain about personal attacks. We are constantly insulted, misrepresented, and falsely accused.
Here’s just one example of you misbehaving: “They’re [personal insults] all you do here. Nothing else.”
THAT is a blatant falsehood, DA. You have misrepresented and falsely accused me. I have provided plenty of valid explanations to debunk pseudoscience. To explain to the uneducated, I often include clear sketches. And, I never attack unless first attacked. And even when I attack, it is with truth. You just don’t like reality.
You need to apologize, again.
I think what I wrote was accurate.
Also, you’re not a “skeptic,” you’re a denier.
Skeptics present reasoned scientific arguments, using data and evidence, to back up their assertions and hypotheses. Skeptics are good and climate science needs more of them.
Deniers do idiotic things like deny the greenhouse effect and the rotation of the moon. They don’t understand what science consists of or how it is done. They think they are smarter than the entire world scientific community. Their arguments are thin at best, and often hilarious. They want respect just for writing something, anything, but are almost always a waste of time.
David Appell says:
=========================
Also, youre not a skeptic, youre a denier. Skeptics present reasoned scientific arguments, using data and evidence, to back up their assertions and hypotheses. Skeptics are good and climate science needs more of them.
=========================
Very poor description of a skeptic. A skeptic demands reasoned scientific arguments and rejects concepts like apriori post normal science, best science available, and other such prejudices and weakly argued beliefs.
————————-
David Appell says:
=========================
Deniers do idiotic things like deny the greenhouse effect and the rotation of the moon. They dont understand what science consists of or how it is done.
=========================
Fits you to a tee David.
————————–
David Appell says:
=========================
They think they are smarter than the entire world scientific community. Their arguments are thin at best, and often hilarious. They want respect just for writing something, anything, but are almost always a waste of time.
=========================
Again fits you to a tee, primarily because the “entire world scientific community” doesn’t amount to a hill of beans if they don’t have sound and well reasoned arguments, evidence, and unmanipulated data relevant to the issue. Just the words “entire world scientific community” demonstrates your complete and unmitigated ignorance on these scientific matters. There actually isn’t a whole lot the “entire world scientific community” agrees upon and probably nothing at all in the natural world. Where that agreement exists is limited to carefully controlled and conclusive laboratory experiments.
When the FDA approves a new drug its usually after several million dollars of carefully constructed experiments and still there is no “entire world scientific community” agreement. You are living somewhere in dream land totally divorced from reality if you believe thats so.
Good response, Bill.
DA likes to accuse others of the things he is guilty of.
Nothing new.
And just like the denier he is, Bill makes accusations he doesn’t even try to support with evidence. Which makes the accusations meaningless.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” – Christopher Hitchens
David Appell says:
September 7, 2019 at 7:45 AM
And just like the denier he is, Bill makes accusations he doesnt even try to support with evidence. Which makes the accusations meaningless.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Christopher Hitchens
—————————
The argument is whether as you claim
“Skeptics present reasoned scientific arguments, using data and evidence, to back up their assertions and hypotheses.”
versus what I say they are
“A skeptic demands reasoned scientific arguments and rejects concepts like apriori post normal science, best science available, and other such prejudices and weakly argued beliefs.”
a skeptic needs an argument to be skeptical of. And you want the skeptic to produce the argument?
Wow! your skull must be a foot thick!
THe world scientific community believes in a great deal. Newtonian mechanics. Classical mechanics. DNA. The laws of thermodynamics. Electromagnetism as expressed through Maxwell’s equations. Schrodinger’s equation. Special relativity.
All used daily with much confidence.
David Appell says:
THe world scientific community believes in a great deal. Newtonian mechanics. Classical mechanics. DNA. The laws of thermodynamics. Electromagnetism as expressed through Maxwells equations. Schrodingers equation. Special relativity.
All used daily with much confidence.
================================
Hmmmm, what do you see in it for yourself? A Lordship at a minimum?
Bill, I provided a counterargument to your claim.
Yet again you try to change the subject. And to something silly.
I take it that means you don’t have a counterargument of your own and wish to cede the point.
David Appell says:
Bill, I provided a counterargument to your claim.
Yet again you try to change the subject. And to something silly.
I take it that means you dont have a counterargument of your own and wish to cede the point.
======================
I didn’t see an argument David. I saw you making some ignorant appeal to authority as if DNA had anything to do with climate science. An ignorant non-scientific argument deserves a silly answer.
Russ Babcock,
#5) Russ, do you know that the UAH Satellite-based Global Temperature of the Lower Troposphere (now changed to Atmosphere) is weighted at 11,000 feet?
That’s what they base their temperature on, 11,000 feet up in the atmosphere.
Just wondering Russ, do you live up at 11,000 feet?
The surface temperature and the troposphere temperature are two very different things.
Lou, obviously you don’t understand the concept of using a single reference point for an ongoing study of Earth’s temperatures.
Nice nonsensical doubletalk JD,
its not even worth responding to you anymore.
UAH global is a “single reference point” for Earth’s temperature.
It’s not that hard to understand, for adults….
All true Russ.
And you know it because the clowns rush in to attack you.
Nothing new.
Russ,
You make some good points, but you miss the target other times.
You state that the ‘declared cause” of warming (CO2) has only been significantly impacted recently. The data says otherwise. CO2 has been rising for well over a century, at a slightly accelerating pace. You seem to imply that there was some single point when we started to ‘ubiquitously’ burn fossil fuels, but that is not the case. We have been impacting CO2 for a long time.
Then consider your correct statement “It is scientifically reasonable then to expect the worst impact should occur at the early stages of increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations.” So — by your own words — it is reasonable that the small increases more than 50 years ago could have had similar impacts to the larger increases in the past 50 years.
So rather than making two points against the AGW hypothesis, you provided one point it its favor! Warming is proceeding about how you said it should!
“These computer models were designed in the first place to prove that anthropogenic global warming is a legitimate fear. ”
That is just wrong. Climate models are designed to model climate. The fact that they tend to predict continued warming is a natural consequence of the science, not a built-in design.
*************************************************
Much of the rest of what you write deserves more attention. Some aspects are over-hyped and predictions about the future are more uncertain that many people admit too.
But over-hyping does not change the underlying physics — increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere does have a warming effect. The explanation is pretty straightforward and relies on basic thermodynamics. (The *details* are another matter, like trying to predict just how large of an impact CO2 will have, and what sort of feedbacks will come into play.)
PS — there is a difference between “alarmists” and “scientists”. Don’t confuse the two.
tim…”We have been impacting CO2 for a long time”.
And prior to the Industrial Era, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 must have been at least 0.03%. There was no catastrophic global warming/climate change due to that level, why should 0.04% make a difference?
You alarmists seem to be oblivious to the fact that CO2 is a very rare gas in the atmosphere. There are other laws like the Ideal Gas Law that govern relationships between mixed gases as in our atmosphere and the IGl reveals that CO2 should not contribute warming more than it’s mass percent ratio, which means a small fraction of a degree C.
I mean hundredths of a degree C.
Gordon Robertson says:
And prior to the Industrial Era, atmospheric concentrations of CO2 must have been at least 0.03%. There was no catastrophic global warming/climate change due to that level
Because the level was constant.
Climate only changes if the level CHANGES.
David, please stop trolling.
Tim admits he doesn’t understand physics: “But over-hyping does not change the underlying physics — increasing the CO2 levels in the atmosphere does have a warming effect. The explanation is pretty straightforward and relies on basic thermodynamics.”
Tim can’t understand the relevant physics, or the “basic thermodynamics”. He can’t even answer the simple question: “Yes or no, does a racehorse rotate on its axis?”
Nothing new.
Why don’t you tell him/us what’s wrong with his thinking and what the correct physics is?
Why don’t you? You still haven’t provided proof that you haven’t helped yourself to the essential identity characteristics of David Appel PhD. The name bears a close resemblance, but of course the university may have misspelled the name Appell as Appel.
Or maybe you forgot how to spell your own name for a few years.
All a bit mysterious, but I’m sure you can let us know the reasons for the apparent name mix up. Did you receive your PhD at the same time and the same educational institution as David Appel, or are you really the same person?
Cheers.
DA starts with his tricks, again: “Why don’t you tell him/us what’s wrong with his thinking and what the correct physics is?”
DA, this has all been explained to you numerous times. You don’t want truth. The more time someone takes to explain to you, the more you come up with distracting questions.
How many times have you asked me what “rotating” means?
Such failed tactics just verify that you are a clown, and that’s all you want to be.
Nothing new.
Mike Flynn says:
Did you receive your PhD at the same time
———————–
I understand he mailed it in with a box top from Sugar Oats but forgot to keep a copy of all the stuff he mailed.
I once suggested to DA that he should ask for a refund, if he actually paid to learn physics.
Commenter “wert” suggested DA should sue for damages!
Well at a minimum he should get a coupon for a free box of Sugar Oats.
JDHuffman says:
DA starts with his tricks, again: Why dont you tell him/us whats wrong with his thinking and what the correct physics is?
DA, this has all been explained to you numerous times.
Another JDH flakeout — says people don’t understand physics, but can’t say where they went wrong or offer any physics of his own.
JDH is all hat, no cattle.
David Appell says:
Another JDH flakeout says people dont understand physics, but cant say where they went wrong or offer any physics of his own.
=====================
JDH is hitting the nail on the head. Anybody offering physics of their own ain’t offering physics. Your problem David is you have have gone to school but you never got a job. Now that is what all hat and no cattle is all about. Even a beginner ranch hand has cattle to tend and wears a hat and would probably in an instant offer you a knuckle sandwich for being a knuclehead.
russ…”Whatever the capacity for CO2 to trap heat, that impact diminishes on a logarithmic scale, because the infrared wavelengths (heat) that CO2 absorbs is essentially at saturation levels already”.
This is a moot point. CO2 cannot trap heat since heat is the kinetic energy of atoms. CO2 can only convert IR to heat but in the ratio of its mass percent which is negligible.
CO2 cannot warm the surface through back-radiation since its temperature is equal to or less than the temperature of the surface. The 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it clear that heat can NEVER be transferred by its own means from a colder body to a warmer body
If the surface radiates IR, that represents a loss of heat at the surface. CO2 has no effect on the rate of heat loss at the surface, only the atmospheric temperature at the surface can affect that rate and that temperature is based on the 99% of the atmospheric interface made up of nitrogen and oxygen.
CO2 has no capacity to ‘trap’ heat. It is a trace gas with no significant effect on atmospheric temperature.
That’s not just my opinion, it is the opinion of R.W. Wood a scientist who specialized in radiation from gases. He was so highly regarded that Neils Bohr sought his advice on the radiation spectrum of sodium vapour gas.
Gordon, if CO2 is a mere trace gas, how can it so drastically increase plant growth and greening?
Are you particularly dim witted? CO2 and H2O are essential for photosynthetic growth. Reducing either below essential minima, and the plant dies.
Providing more, up to a certain level, creates more plant material. Grumble all you like, but most people prefer more food to less. Excess food can always be ignored, and the fact that there is CO2 and H2O in the atmosphere shows that plants don’t remove it all.
CO2 does not trap heat. CO2 can be heated, and if the heat source is withdrawn, the CO2 cools. Dry ice is just CO2 which has been allowed to cool below its freezing point. This should not be a difficult concept for someone who claims to have a PhD in physics.
You are just a particularly delusional pseudoscientific GHE true believer, who can’t even describe this GHE which you so blindly worship.
The Earth has managed to cool over the last four and a half billion years, spin it as you may. Thermometers react to heat, not CO2. Burning hydrocarbons generates CO2, H2O, and heat!
Work it out for yourself. If a thermometer shows an increased temperature, do you think it might be due to CO2, H2O – or heat?
Back to your fantasy, David. That’s where you belong.
Cheers.
DA…”if CO2 is a mere trace gas, how can it so drastically increase plant growth and greening?”
What does plant growth and greening have to do with atmospheric warming? They are entirely different processes.
But how can a trace gas accomplish *anything*, warming or greening or acidification, if it is…a miniscule trace gas?
Because the mass of the atmosphere is about 1800 times larger than the total biomass on earth including both plants and animals.
So total CO2 in the atmosphere has a total mass of about 72% of the total mass of biomass on earth.
Yes CO2 can affect greening.
Ocean acidification is so ridiculous its even far worse than the mass relationship of the atmosphere to CO2. The mass of the oceans is about 3,375,000 times the total mass of CO2 in the atmosphere.
You wanted numbers now you have them.
Bill, so you’re saying there IS a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. Enough to green.
But why not enough to warm the surface and acidify the ocean?
David Appell says:
Bill, so youre saying there IS a lot of CO2 in the atmosphere. Enough to green.
But why not enough to warm the surface and acidify the ocean?
——————————–
I gave you some numbers David. Convince me.
Bill, ocean acidity depends on concentration.
The pre-industrial pH of the ocean was already 8.2 or so.
So with atmo CO2 = 280 ppm, oceanic CO2 as carbonic acid was already having an significant impact on hydrogen ion concentration, i.e. ocean acidity.
Your hypothesis says that impact should be close to zero, no?
David Appell says:
Bill, ocean acidity depends on concentration.
The pre-industrial pH of the ocean was already 8.2 or so.
So with atmo CO2 = 280 ppm, oceanic CO2 as carbonic acid was already having an significant impact on hydrogen ion concentration, i.e. ocean acidity.
Your hypothesis says that impact should be close to zero, no?
==========================
Thats just a lot of gobbledygook. Carbonic acid is a necessary ingredient in the ocean for life. Its like talking about Selenium as a poison, extremely poisonous but a necessary nutrient. Some areas of the world like East asia suffer from a lack of selenium. In the US if you eat a balanced diet you should be fine. Necessary is somewhere around 50ug per day, but many folks take supplements up to a maximum recommended 400ug per day. And thats a US recommended limit. Perhaps 8 times the needed amount.
So studies have been conducted. I have seen several where extra carbonic acid actually aided in the faster growing of shellfish. I haven’t seen one with where growth was stunted. Carbonic acid plays a role in cell and shell development. Eventually all this carbon ends up in deposits in the bottom of the ocean in limestone calcium carbonate deposits from all the shells and skeletons shed over the eons.
The amount of co2 being added to the atmosphere is perhaps indicative a doubling of CO2. The oceans have a mass 360 times the atmosphere. Its not like CO2 increases in atoms going into the ocean. If you want to make a case for this I would suggest actually finding some evidence that ocean acidification is a real risk rather than just parroting your daddies. All this stuff comes down to science not some banner carried by a moron. Thats the sort of BS you learn in school. The real world plays by its own rule book.
Its amazing how stupid people are emerging from our educational system without clue one as to the complexity and robustness of the world. Everything to them is a f-king crisis. Its like lets ask the government to spend money on this and that. And dumshiits wonder why thats what is being preached in government-funded education recruitment center classes.
that last answer probably went over your head David. So let me ask a simple question. If carbon dioxide doubles in the atmosphere and thus balances with CO2 in the ocean, what is the change in pH from that?
Gordon,
Tried to reply to you several times but for some reason the site will not accept my reply directly. I still have my reply to you as a pdf document and a Word document. Sorry, don’t know how to get it to you, but thanks for your thoughtful reply to me.
Russ…”Tried to reply to you several times but for some reason the site will not accept my reply directly”.
The problem there is usually related to the basic letter combination d*c without the *. For example, NCD*C or Had*crut. That applies to both the body of text and any URL.
That’s a rule of thumb, there are other combos, but not many. I used to have trouble with refrig*erant.
Best way to troubleshoot the problem is to copy your post to a word processor or text editor, like Notepad. Then post your reply one paragraph at a time. If the first paragraph posts OK, post the next paragraph as a reply to post 1, marked part 2…
Go through you post like that till you encounter a paragraph that won’t post. Look for the D*C combo first then look for words that seem suspect. Enter dots between the letters in each word of suspect words and try to repost the paragraph.
Once the problem is found, it’s usually safe to post the rest of the post in one go.
Russ is trying to swamp the comment section so nobody will respond.
Pick one of your 10 points and I’ll tell you why it’s wrong.
Why can’t you just pick one yourself? Desperate to make other people waste their time spoon feeding you? Are you blind, or just lazy and incompetent?
Cheers.
DA…”Russ is trying to swamp the comment section so nobody will respond.
Pick one of your 10 points and Ill tell you why its wrong”.
***
That’s a sure sign that the comment is right.
Climate shysters losing in court again
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/09/breaking-james-cook-uni-ordered-to-pay-1-2m-to-peter-ridd-judge-vasta-is-scathing/
If you want to see what a nonsense is written by Global Cooling Idiots:
https://www.globalweatheroscillations.com/united-states-2020-winter-outlook
It is absolutely inimaginable to read on that stoopid liar web site about winter in 2017/18 and 2018/19 in Europe!
NOAA predicted us for both these winters extremely mild conditions; and exactly that happened!
We had in Germany no snow let alone ice last year, one or two poor, lonesome days excepted.
And when I download NOAA’s GHCN daily data, I see exactly the same as was (1) predicted (2) experienced.
Thus, the ridiculous ‘uncommenter*’s a la Robertson, all the time ready to discredit NOAA’s work, should put their mouth deep in the manure instead of outing their daily lies.
binny…”t is absolutely inimaginable to read on that stoopid liar web site about winter in 2017/18 and 2018/19 in Europe!
NOAA predicted us for both these winters extremely mild conditions; and exactly that happened!”
****
NOAA has fudged the temperature record out of recognition. They can no longer be trusted, especially after declaring 2014 the hottest year ever using a 48% confidence level.
You are not questioning their dishonesty despite such evidence and blindly accepting everything they claim. That seems to be part of the Teutonic nature, however.
A brief English lesson. In English, when we refer to the past we only use the word ‘since’ in certain contexts. German’s tend to use it incorrectly.
You said, “…though being since years a fan of Klaus Wolters MEI…”
One correction might be, “though being a fan of Klaus Wolter’s MEI for year…”
Do you see that ‘since years’ makes no sense? It’s ‘for years’, or ‘over the years’, or ‘for many years’. Since means from one time in the past to another time in the present. It is an interval between times in the past to the present.
I have been a fan of Klaus since 1980. There are nearly 40 years represented by since but you are saying since years, which is not a date. Does not have to be a date, it can be an event. I have been bored since summer ended. Or I feel blue since my girlfriend left, a source of many songs.
Years in not a time nor is it an event.
I understand that it is difficult to translate one language to another and I am trying to be helpful, not a jerk.
GR wrote:
They can no longer be trusted, especially after declaring 2014 the hottest year ever using a 48% confidence level.
You have two annual temperature anomalies, 0.50 C and 0.53 C, each with a 95% confidence limit (2-sigma error bar) of 0.05 C.
Which temperature is larger?
Why don’t you tell everyone? How hard can it be?
What is your point?
Cheers.
DA…”You have two annual temperature anomalies, 0.50 C and 0.53 C, each with a 95% confidence limit (2-sigma error bar) of 0.05 C”.
***
Something smells fishy…red herring?
DA…here’s a better one. You have 2014 rated in first place at a CL of 48%. What position would it be in at 95%?
It would be something like 2017 vs 2016 here:
https://tinyurl.com/y2awyhbs
Notice the overlap?
There is a small chance that 2016 was at 0.88 C and 2017 was 0.89 C.
Get it?
It’s not a red herring Gordon, it’s exactly the situation faced by all temperature measuring groups who try rank annual temperatures.
So what’s your answer? Which annual temperature is larger?
Gordon, I don’t know where I ranked 2014, but 48% is the PROBABILITY, not the confidence limit.
Do you understand the difference?
svante…”It would be something like 2017 vs 2016 here:”
You have posted data from Berkely Earth, meaning the data is fudged data based on the fudged data of NOAA.
Double-fudged data, go figure.
DA…”I dont know where I ranked 2014, but 48% is the PROBABILITY, not the confidence limit.
Do you understand the difference?”
***
I do, but you obviously don’t. A probability and a confidence level are essentially the same thing. When you claim a 90% confidence level you are claiming your claim is probably right but there is a 10% chance it is wrong.
With NOAA’s 48% claim that 2014 was the hottest year on record, they were claiming a 48% probability that it was and a 52% probability that it was not.
I am beginning to see why you alarmists have so much trouble with NOAA’s chicanery, none of you understand statistical methods.
GR wrote:
A probability and a confidence level are essentially the same thing. When you claim a 90% confidence level you are claiming your claim is probably right but there is a 10% chance it is wrong.
In your example, the probability a year is the hottest is 48%.
This number doesn’t have a confidence limit. It’s just a probability.
“Confidence Level
“In survey sampling, different samples can be randomly selected from the same population; and each sample can often produce a different confidence interval. Some confidence intervals include the true population parameter; others do not.
“A confidence level refers to the percentage of all possible samples that can be expected to include the true population parameter. For example, suppose all possible samples were selected from the same population, and a confidence interval were computed for each sample. A 95% confidence level implies that 95% of the confidence intervals would include the true population parameter.”
https://stattrek.com/statistics/dictionary.aspx?definition=confidence%20level
GR, you never said which of the two years I gave is the warmest….
David, please stop trolling.
Gordon Robertson says:
“Double-fudged data”
Did you notice how the normal distributions overlapped?
Good thinking, Svante. A six days late response will ensure Gordon definitely won’t see your response.
Bindidnon,
“JMA has by far the best ENSO prediction mechanism worldwide.”
What makes you say that? It’s odd, because they have different ENSO events (more numerous) than the MEI.
There is more than one way to measure an ENSO event, and the different institutes give different results, making it rather difficult to determine who can predict them best.
But I’m curious why you think JMA does it best.
barry
To understand what I mean, you have to carefully read the entire page:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/elmonout.html
and when you have reached Fig. 13, to continue by following the three major links:
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/model/outline/cps2_description.html
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/move_mricom-g2_doc.html
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/elnino/outlook.html
When you have it all in, you know why I, though being since years a fan of Klaus Wolter’s MEI, nevertheless consider JMA’s ENSO work to be the best of all.
The test of a good forecaster is how often they are correct. JMA have been doing ENSO forecasts since 1998, I think. Don’t know if anyone has compared to see who is most often correct.
It looks very good in the Bahamas:
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/bahamas-les-images-d-un-paradis-devaste-apres-le-passage-de-l-ouragan-dorian-20190906
What the heck are these people there complaining about?
Trumpie will visit them next week, and all will go well!
/sarc
Bindidon resorts to trying to making political statements based on the misery of others.
Fortunately, we have the term “sleaze bag”, for such people.
You have to be a true cretin to make a post like this in here
Eben
I was sure you wouldn’t understand the reason for my sarcasm.
Look at all comments written here by persons like Robertson and Huffman concerning Dorian since it reached the Bahamas…
Maybe you then get it.
Now Bindidon tries to sleaze out by implying that I have insulted Bahamians.
Bindidon, show us you’re not a sleaze bag by providing just one instance where I denigrated or insulted Bahamians.
Or, do you want to be a sleaze bag?
“Denigrated… insulted.”
I believe Bindidon is saying that those minimising Hurricane Dorian’s threat seem to have no mind at all for the damage done in the Bahamas.
The term I would use to describe them is “pitiless.”
barry, please stop trolling.
I just calculated the total annual gross mass gain in Antarctica.
166mm rain (in the form of snow) per year (average for Antarctica)
13.9989 million Km2
0.99987 g / cm3 water density
2323.5 gigatons per year. I can take you through all the conversions if you’d like, but you can actually use mm, km2 to calculate gt water roughly.
That matches the rumored 2000 gt I had heard online but could not verify in the same way I could for Greenland. If someone has a mass balance chart showing the annual mass gain, mass loss please share it. (not GRACE)
Why did I do this? The GRACE data has the SAME exact problem for Antarctica as Greenland. The 2324 gt of annual snow fall is MISSING from the data. Folks… we are gaining ice everywhere, have been for decades. We have been seriously mis-led.
Scott R
It is amazing to see how people like you, who manifestly aren’t even able to correctly build a running 5-year average on a time series and therefore imagine a non-existent temperature decline in the Southern Ocean, nevertheless think they can doubt about the correctness of a project like GRACE.
*
Do you remember the ridiculous mistake you made, which I recently managed to show you?
1. Your wrong, scary representation suggesting a harsh cooling in the Southern Ocean:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vtnZJ2kh3i6QQmkXZfk2IiWMEyg5sg0f/view
2. My correction, putting the 5-year mean back into its real context:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QYHHhwzscRu3eNl4X5BjsllpEpUXgDXS/view
*
I would understand your point if you were a real scientist, able to correctly analyse and therefore to doubt about the GRACE project’s results.
But all you can manifestly is to do a five minute job about that and then think you are at their level.
Maybe you start gaining some humility by reading e.g. this paper:
Revisiting GRACE Antarctic ice mass trends and accelerations
considering autocorrelation
https://tinyurl.com/y3s3bhbs
Such people are light-years above you, Scott R.
Bindidon,
Why are you resorting to the technics lame non scientific people on social media use? Simply saying I’m under qualified, 97% of scientists agree does not make me wrong. You don’t have the ammunition to take out my criticism of GRACE, so you resort to this tactic. Where is the 600 ft in Greenland? Where is the 2324 gt in Antarctica? GRACE is measuring flow, not mass gains. The yearly amplitude does not look right and you know it.
As for the South Pole, you didn’t do anything to disprove what I said. You only displayed the data differently to soften the facts that the southern ocean cooled while the rest of the world warmed. UAH agrees. No warming in Antarctica. As for the energy budget for the earth, now that I’ve really started diving into the ice sheet mass I’m even more convinced we haven’t increased the heat content the oceans hold with co2. We have only moved the energy from one place to another. As the ice sheet outflows increase to try to reach equilibrium, the cooling impact from these two major ice sheets will only increase. We are heading slowly, uninterrupted towards the next ice age.
GRACE measures gravitational attraction to mass, not flows.
GRACE died over a year ago, DA.
Try to keep up.
GRACE-FO (“FO” for follow-on) launched in May 2018.
See DA, you can correct yourself.
That’s a start, but you’ve got a lot of work ahead.
Please continue.
DA…”GRACE measures gravitational attraction to mass, not flows”.
Good grief, DA, do you never think before you post? What do you think causes a glacier? Gravity!!! Glaciers flow downhill due to gravity.
And gravity is not attracted to mass, it’s the other way around.
David Appell,
Yes GRACE measured gravity. But the data was being used to calculate total mass. The results do not match reality for either Greenland or Antarctica. Perhaps that raw data could be useful still, but, someone did not program / calculate the mass correctly. Done correctly, you should see a match between analytical measurement methods at the surface over a season and GRACE but we do not see that. Instead, the GRACE results look more like a flow rate to me.
Scott, gravity and mass are intimately connected, of course. Measuring gravitational force is in effect measuring mass, and measuring changes in force measures changes in mass. Scientists who designed GRACE thought about all this *very* carefully, of course.
Your don’t give any sources for the numbers you choose, so it’s impossible to understand or critique them. You just pull numbers out of thin air without sourcing.
Gordon says glaciers flow downhill due to gravity. A truly stunning insight, I have to say.
Masses attract — we call that gravity. Measuring changes in gravitational forces is in effect measuring changes in masses.
DA believes: ” Scientists who designed GRACE thought about all this *very* carefully, of course.”
Wrong DA. If they had really been scientists, and really had an understanding of gravity, they would know that you can’t measure what they’re trying to measure. They are fooling you.
Nothing new.
Gotta love it.
JDHuff tells Appell to try to keep up, GRACE died a year ago
When Appell lets him know a new GRACE was launched a year ago JD tries to fudge and cover up by telling Appell ‘see you can correct yourself’.
poor JD the deluded clown. Nothing new.
Yes Maypole, DA corrected himself.
But you are unable to comprehend. That’s typical for uneducated typists.
Nothing new.
Not to mention that the use of GRACE numbers came from Scott at the top of this thread, a skeptic, who Huffman ignored for using them. No, the criticism is purely tribal head-bashing from this one.
And Scott is indeed wrong. GRACE measures mass based on gravity – it doesn’t ignore gains from snowfall.
The GRACE project is some really interesting science. If only this blog could pull itself out of the petty Punch and Judy show it is forever mired in.
barry, do you realize you have degraded yourself to now resorting to false accusations? But, at least it goes along well with your fear of learning:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/08/if-dorian-hits-as-a-cat4-still-no-long-term-trends-in-florida-major-hurricanes/#comment-383900
barry…”And Scott is indeed wrong. GRACE measures mass based on gravity it doesnt ignore gains from snowfall”.
The mass of snowfall is far different than the mass of a glacier. Fresh snow is first compacted into neve, more granular snow than flakes which results from snow melting and being compacted.
As more snow is added on top, the neve forms layers, and as the neve layers and new snow pile up, the pressure turns a neve layer to ice.
It appears Scott is right, GRACE cannot distinguish between the gravity anomaly due to glacier ice and the layers of neve and fresh snow above the glacier ice.
Based on what I understand of GRACE it lacks the resolution to measure glacier mass flow or ice loss.
Of course, theorists think their toys can do anything, like the climate model theorists who arrogantly claim their models are right and real data collected by satellite telemetry is wrong.
I corrected JDH, not myself. He didn’t know a new GRACE had replaced the older pair.
Gordon, again, GRACE doesn’t measure *flow*, it measures gravitational attraction and hence mass anomalies. Same with sea level, which it measures very accurately. It measures mass changes in underwater aquifers. It’s an amazing instrument.
JDHuffman says:
If they had really been scientists, and really had an understanding of gravity, they would know that you cant measure what theyre trying to measure.
Why not? Let’s see your physics knowledge in action.
DA poses another distracting question: “Why not? Let’s see your physics knowledge in action.”
DA, you have no credibility. You have demonstrated a disregard for both reality and physics. I will no longer waste time trying to teach you physics until you can face reality.
Want to start facing reality? Then answer this:
Does a racehorse rotate on its axis, yes or no?
Another JDH flakeout.
I knew it — you can’t provide any physics.
You just go around insulting people and calling their replies “pseudoscience,” but you have no idea if their ideas are right or wrong and you can’t provide the correct physics.
Or any physics.
You’re a complete fake. Full of bluster, but turns tail and runs as soon as any physics knowledge is called for.
Gordon Robertson writes:
“It appears Scott is right, GRACE cannot distinguish between the gravity anomaly due to glacier ice and the layers of neve and fresh snow above the glacier ice”
Gravity is directly proportional to mass, not density. You just failed junior school physics.
David, barry, please stop trolling.
“We are heading slowly, uninterrupted towards the next ice age.”
We are in ice age {and will not leave it}. But heading slowly towards a glacial period, yup.
But we could traveling to distant stars, by then.
And could slow down entering glacial period, by transforming Sahara desert into grassland. And could do that before we are spacefaring.
Once we are spacefaring, we control Earth average temperature.
It’s a lot easier to cool Earth, but we could also warm it.
Or Russians considered reflecting sunlight to add light to Russia during winter. Instead just adding enough to cause light, one add more intense sunlight that increase the temperature.
So you could make Iceland a “summer resort” during the winter.
This is easier than Space Power Satellites. Well, a lot easier than SPS for entire Earth surface and providing say more than 1/2 of all electrical power need, globally.
Gbaikie,
Yes I agree we never left the ice age from a scientific point of view. You bring up some interesting ideas. Sadly, the human life span is only 80 years so we will never know what humans do down the road. The major climate issue for the rest of our lives will be the GSM, not CO2. The truth about this will be revealed in the coming years and folks won’t have to take my word for it.
1) A GSM won’t have enough forcing to overcome CO2
2) This well known prediction of a GSM is already failing, as I showed here:
https://davidappell.blogspot.com/2019/04/abdussamatovs-prediction-of-solar.html
“The apparent loss of India’s first moon lander Vikram has cast a pall on the country’s Chandrayaan-2 lunar mission, but Prime Minister Narendra Modi has told the nation’s space agency it must forge ahead.”
https://www.space.com/india-prime-minister-chandrayaan-2-moon-landing-video-transcript.html
More pseudoscience from DA: “1) A GSM won’t have enough forcing to overcome CO2”
Nothing new.
“The major climate issue for the rest of our lives will be the GSM, not CO2. The truth about this will be revealed in the coming years and folks won’t have to take my word for it.”
I think people will realize that building wind mills and solar panels was fun, but living with wind mills and solar panels is not so fun.
And at such a time, probably they could also come to realize that wind mills and solar panel do not actually reduce CO2 emissions.
The big uncertainty is will it be said that it was worth spending trillions of dollars doing it?
I would guess that they will decide that they were not actually smart enough to do anything better with the money.
Something like, over the decades, we spend as much money on beer, so as a result, the statistics indicate that we drank less beer- perhaps saving hundreds of lives {and we didn’t need the bats and birds}.
scott…”Sadly, the human life span is only 80 years…”
I’m working on 150 years plus. If you leave a forwarding address when you pass on at 80 I’ll let you know how things work out.
A better alternative is to drop all belief about longevity. If you believe you’ll die at such and such an age you likely will. Belief sets the tone for your final years, you stop doing things you enjoy because there’s no apparent future in it. The worst thing you can do is sit on your butt and relax re the inevitable.
Then again, you could get hit by a bus.
Ignore the future and live in the present.
Lots of people think we have left the Pleistocene ice ages because Milankovitch forcing is no longer the dominant forcing of climate change — anthropogenic GHG forcings are.
Hence the “Anthropocene” — the age of man. Although maybe this should be a period and not a epoch. Maybe the “Anthropogene.”
–David Appell says:
September 8, 2019 at 10:38 AM
Lots of people think we have left the Pleistocene ice ages because Milankovitch forcing is no longer the dominant forcing of climate change — anthropogenic GHG forcings are.–
Lots people are dumb.
Wiki:
“The last 3 million years have been characterized by cycles of glacials and interglacials within a gradually deepening ice age”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png
It’s like David said a long time ago, the next ice age is toast.
“Critical insolation–CO2 relation for diagnosing past and future glacial inception”
A. Ganopolski, R. Winkelmann & H. J. Schellnhuber
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494
DA…”A GSM wont have enough forcing to overcome CO2″
1)no such physical entity as a forcing, it’s a term from differential equation theory.
2)there is no significant warming from CO2 to overcome.
JDHuffman says:
“More pseudoscience from DA: 1) A GSM wont have enough forcing to overcome CO2”
For once, give the science that shows what I wrote was “pseudoscience.”
gbaikie says:
And at such a time, probably they could also come to realize that wind mills and solar panel do not actually reduce CO2 emissions.
That’s a silly statement. Of course they do.
gbalkie:
What was the dominant climate forcing of the Pleistocene?
What is the dominant climate forcing today?
By how much are Milankovitch forcings changing today, per year?
By how much are anthropogenic forcings changing today, per year?
Gordon, your #2 is dumb and not worth replying to.
Your #1 is wrong — there’s a very easily understood definition of climate forcing:
“The difference between incoming and outgoing radiation is known as a planets radiative forcing (RF). In the same way as applying a pushing force to a physical object will cause it to become unbalanced and move, a climate forcing factor will change the climate system.”
https://www.climate.gov/maps-data/primer/climate-forcing
So anthropogenic CO2’s radiative forcing (climate forcing) is how much it alters the planet’s radiative forcing, if all other forcings are held constant, measured at the tropopause.
–Svante says:
September 8, 2019 at 2:46 PM
It’s like David said a long time ago, the next ice age is toast.
moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years8,9
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16494 —
“Using an ensemble of simulations generated by an Earth system model of intermediate complexity constrained by palaeoclimatic data, we suggest that glacial inception was narrowly missed before the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. The missed inception can be accounted for by the combined effect of relatively high late-Holocene CO2 concentrations and the low orbital eccentricity of the Earth. Additionally, our analysis suggests that even in the absence of human perturbations no substantial build-up of ice sheets would occur within the next several thousand years and that the current interglacial would probably last for another 50,000 years.
However, moderate anthropogenic cumulative CO2 emissions of 1,000 to 1,500 gigatonnes of carbon will postpone the next glacial inception by at least 100,000 years”
So, their “ensemble of simulations” put the glacial period 50,000 year into the future, without including post industrial high level of the present CO2 added of 1 trillion tonnes of CO2.
I don’t believe they any better at such projection as compared to other “scientists” which have made wrong projection of warming within coming decades.
I don’t have opinion of when next glacial period will begin. But I think we take a while before get into a glacial period, it’s going to take centuries or thousands of year to form ice sheets in the temperate zone. But if use the Little Ice Age as model, glaciers advanced for centuries, and if that had continued doing that for several more centuries with near polar ice sheet begin forming, than maybe within centuries we will have a beginning if a Temperate Zone ice sheet, then we could say we in a glacial period- and fairly likely stay in it for long time.
But we really don’t need to worry about getting into glacial period, something the Little Ice Age would severely affect us and that possible {not likely} within a few centuries but even that is too far into the future to concerned about.
–David Appell says:
September 8, 2019 at 7:17 PM
gbalkie:
What was the dominant climate forcing of the Pleistocene?
What is the dominant climate forcing today?–
That’s easy. Having average ocean temperature of 5 C or colder.
{Currently it’s about 3.5 C}
–David Appell says:
September 8, 2019 at 7:14 PM
gbaikie says:
And at such a time, probably they could also come to realize that wind mills and solar panel do not actually reduce CO2 emissions.
Thats a silly statement. Of course they do.–
Well some people do already realize this, but I mean when most do.
gbalkie wrote:
So, their ensemble of simulations put the glacial period 50,000 year into the future, without including post industrial high level of the present CO2 added of 1 trillion tonnes of CO2.
Of course — they were trying to determine when the next glacial period would start IF THERE WERE NO ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS LIKE CO2.
gbaikie says:
What is the dominant climate forcing today?
“Thats easy. Having average ocean temperature of 5 C or colder.”
Ocean temperature isn’t a forcing it’s a response.
You really don’t know what caused the ice ages of the Pleistocene?? That would surprise me.
Svante says:
Its like David said a long time ago, the next ice age is toast.
——————————-
Great news!!!
–David Appell says:
September 8, 2019 at 10:01 PM
gbaikie says:
What is the dominant climate forcing today?
Thats easy. Having average ocean temperature of 5 C or colder.
Ocean temperature isnt a forcing its a response.–
Ocean temperature is control knob or it’s forcing.
“You really dont know what caused the ice ages of the Pleistocene?? That would surprise me.”
A colder ocean.
A icebox climate definitely, requires a cold ocean.
The other part of the definition, is having polar ice caps- which requires land area to be in a polar region.
One can call land in polar region when ocean is cold, another forcing element, or control knob. The particular arrangement of Antarctica is considered important element related to Pleistocene, and it’s also required if you want to call Ice Age as having two poles having a ice sheet.
“David Appell says:
September 8, 2019 at 9:59 PM
gbalkie wrote:
So, their ensemble of simulations put the glacial period 50,000 year into the future, without including post industrial high level of the present CO2 added of 1 trillion tonnes of CO2.
Of course they were trying to determine when the next glacial period would start IF THERE WERE NO ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS LIKE CO2.”
Yes, of course.
They were trying to do that.
And unless you are particularly concerned about +50,000 year into some imagined future, according to them the 1 trillion tonnes added didn’t have any effects in regard to preventing us from entering a glaciation period. And they have a good guess that the 1 trillion tonnes will prevent a glaciation period starting in about 50,000 years.
{I will step into the time machine, a check to see if they were correct.
Oh, but a problem is, that probably no one speaks English or any other currently existing language in 50,000 years. And my time machine not does have universal translator.
So, I guess I will take a pass on the plan.}
bill hunter says:
Svante says:
Its like David said a long time ago, the next ice age is toast.
–
Great news!!!
Why do you think you get to decide the climate for the people who will live thousands of years in the future?
gbalkie, you’ve never heard of Milankovitch factors?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
David Appell says:
bill hunter says:
Svante says:
Its like David said a long time ago, the next ice age is toast.
Great news!!!
Why do you think you get to decide the climate for the people who will live thousands of years in the future?
===================
Whoa! The real wannabee despotic narcissist personality of David leers and jeers from his protective shell!!
Actually David I wish the world palm trees, coconuts, azure blue waters, and natural woven hammock to take it all in from. You apparently wish them icebergs, frozen tundra, ungodly cold temperatures, and no fuel for warmth – – – -that does sound like a doable plan for Lebensraum and getting the world’s population down to what you see as a sustainable level.
And I want it to stay like it is.
I guess I’m just conservative.
Svante, please stop trolling.
binny…”Why are you resorting to the technics lame non scientific people on social media use? Simply saying Im under qualified, 97% of scientists agree does not make me wrong”.
****
Scott…binny is an armchair statistician, a legend in his own mind.
Polar expert Duncan Wingham, who supports the AGW paradigm, when asked if glaciers are melting in Antarctica, indicated that it is far too cold in Antarctica for glaciers to melt.
binny and the rest of his alarmist buddies fail to comprehend that the same truth hold essentially for Greenland. It’s far too cold there most of the year for glaciers to melt.
They may melt a bit in one month of summer, but for most of the year Greenland is a frigid wasteland. The reason is simple, there’s no freakin’ sun.
Most glaciers melt in Antarctica from the bottom of their tongues, where the ocean laps below them. This eventually forms icebergs, and then land-based ice slides down to take take their place and keep the process going.
But I doubt you have understood Wingham correctly.
DA,
What utter balderdash, Go and learn about glaciers, ice shelves, ocean tides, flexural softening, and pretty well everything else. You are completely clueless.
You are silly as the NSF experts and others who fought for years to deny Archimedes principle. These silly supposed experts also convinced themselves that floating ice exerts a lateral force – holding back glaciers, and stopping them from flowing. Not without some other force, it doesn’t!
No wonder Feynman said science was belief in the ignorance of experts!
Use your brain David, don’t just parrot pseudoscientific nonsense.
Cheers.
DA…”Most glaciers melt in Antarctica from the bottom of their tongues…”
So you admit the glaciers are not melting. The process you describe is called ‘calving’ and it has been known well before AGW became a household delusion.
Calving does not cause melting, it is gravity and wave action that causes it in Antarctica. Wingham meant that the glacier itself, from top to bottom, was not melting because it is too cold in Antarctica for them to melt.
Gordon, the glaciers are mostly melting UNDERNEATH as their tongues lay over the ocean. The topography of western Antarctica is that as they break off and form icebergs, ice there were holding back slides down and replaces it. Thus their melting affects sea level.
“The glaciers of Pine Island Bay are two of the largest and fastest-melting in Antarctica. (A Rolling Stone feature earlier this year dubbed Thwaites The Doomsday Glacier.) Together, they act as a plug holding back enough ice to pour 11 feet of sea-level rise into the worlds oceansan amount that would submerge every coastal city on the planet. For that reason, finding out how fast these glaciers will collapse is one of the most important scientific questions in the world today.”
https://www.wired.com/story/two-melting-glaciers-could-decide-the-fate-of-our-coastlines/
Gordon Robertson says:
So you admit the glaciers are not melting.
Of course I didn’t.
David, please stop trolling.
David Appell says:
Gordon Robertson says:
So you admit the glaciers are not melting.
Of course I didnt.
=========================
David once again confuses natural variation with AGW.
What natural factors are causing glaciers to melt?
Melting from the LIA recovery now for about 180 years. Slowing down now though. Melt was much faster in the 19th century.
Russ, pick one of your 10 points and we’ll tell you why it’s wrong and/or wrong-headed.
No you won’t DA. You will ask numerous distracting questions. You don’t know the relevant physics. You just know enough to fake it. You can’t accept reality.
Nothing new.
From someone who flakes out every time he’s asked to present his scientific reasoning and couldn’t calculate his way out of a paper bag.
David Appell says:
From someone who flakes out every time hes asked to present his scientific reasoning and couldnt calculate his way out of a paper bag.
===========================
Well that certainly includes you and all of climate science. Central to science are actual calculations of atmospheric effects and a demonstration that those calculation match reality in addition to being able to match it up to a specific variable by controlling through understanding any other variables.
Climate science and the propagandists for it make it a mission to shift that burden on to somebody else so they can point and say see you can’t calculate yourself out of a paper bag.
Duly noted.
I cite more papers, data and calculations than anyone here.
I’ve yet to see you cite even one. Or any indication you’ve read a single scientific paper or ever read a textbook. I doubt you could understand the math anyway.
There you go just guessing again.
Bottom line, man made gases barely change our climate.
How much, for a doubling of CO2?
Show your work.
DA, since you are into distracting questions–“How much is ‘barely’ multiplied by 2?”
Show your work.
How much is “barely?” Give a number. Explain how it’s derived.
David, please stop trolling.
mstiller…”According to the data provided by Dr. Spencer (on whose website you post your tripe), we are in the 11th year of a global superwarming trend that erases the so called pause and has no precedent in observational data in terms of 10 year trends”.
***********
Here a link to Roy’s UAH graph.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_August_2019_v6.jpg
You claim an 11 year trend going back to 2008.
1)The IPCC reported in 2013 no significant warming from 1998 – 2012. The beginning of your so-called trend is the last 4 years in that flat trend.
2)If you know anything about calculus and visually guestimating graphs, you can plainly see the graph is flat from 1998 – 2012.
Follow the red running average curve.
The apparent flatness in the trend is the period from mid-2001 to mid-2007. A plain idiot can see it is relatively flat along 0.15C.
Following mid-2007 you get an almost perfect upside down sine wave till 2011. The average of that waveform is zero and centred almost around 0.15C.
Note the peak at 2010, the third warmest year in the record.
Following the u/d sine wave you have another dip to the baseline Care still at 0.15, then you have a slow rise to 0.2C in 2015. I am claiming the average of those sections as part of the flat trend.
So, we have a verified flat trend from mid-2001 to 2015, some 14 years. How about the other end?
The EN peak in mid-1998 is narrow and it is followed by a wider curve that dips below the baseline. The EN pulse can be consider one half of a sine wave and it’s average value is 0.636 of the peak at 0.45C = 0.286C. If you factor in the wider low pulse following I claim you can average the entire combo to nearly 0.15C.
That’s where the IPCC puts it since they claimed no significant warming.
2)going back to the 2015 end, a major EN struck in early 2016. That was the beginning of your super-warming and it dropped off immediately. The trend has been negative following the 2016 EN, with no super-warming in sight.
3)your super warming is an hallucination, just like AGW. No proof anywhere that CO2 has anything to do with it and ample proof that El Ninos are driving the warming.
gord,
Your UAH Troposphere (now Atmosphere) graph shows that after the 1998 El Nino high anomaly the global troposphere temp bottomed out and then rose again in 2002.
Do you notice any similarities with the 2016 El Nino?
Oh look! It has bottomed out and now the temp is up again, just like after the 1998 El Nino.
Ruh roh!
lou…”Your UAH Troposphere (now Atmosphere) graph shows that after the 1998 El Nino high anomaly the global troposphere temp bottomed out and then rose again in 2002″.
You incoherent, red-herring rebuttal suggests you got the point that the IPCC called the period from 1998 – 2012 a ‘warming hiatus’.
Then better data came in (Karl et al Science 2015) that showed there had not been in any pause.
David, please stop trolling.
GR wrote:
1)The IPCC reported in 2013 no significant warming from 1998 2012.
That changed when better data came in. You know that.
No proof anywhere that CO2 has anything to do with it
I’ve shown it to you multiple times. You keep your head safely in the sand.
gordon robertson,
1) The IPCC never reported ‘no significant warming from 1998 – 2012’. This is a wholly made up story from your AGW denying gang.
The IPCC stated ‘the rate of warming over the last 15 years, 1998 – 2012, is smaller than the trend since 1951.’
The IPCC said zero about ‘no significant warming’, that’s all bluster from you.
They stated its still warming but at a lesser rate over that specific period.
lou maytrees…”The IPCC never reported no significant warming from 1998 2012. This is a wholly made up story from your AGW denying gang”.
***
Another alarmist idiot.
See page 6:
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter02.pdf
“Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 19982012 (0.05C [0.05 to +0.15] per decade)…”
Did you catch that Lou? 0.05C warming with an error margin of -0.05C to +0.15C?
In anyone’s book, 0.05C warming/decade is insignificant but when the IPCC calls it ‘warming hiatus’ that pretty well says insignificant. The error margin suggests there may even have been cooling.
After the IPCC called the trend flat, NOAA fudged the SST retroactively to show a slight trend.
Trenberth admitted in the Climategate email scandal during that period that the warming had stopped. Then he claimed it was being hidden in the oceans.
You are part of a conspiracy theory, Lou, and it’s not even a good conspiracy. By conspiracy, I mean alarmists are convinced we are going to Hell in a handbasket and they have not an iota of proof to back them.
Gordon Robertson says: – lou maytrees…”The IPCC never reported no significant warming from 1998 2012. This is a wholly made up story from your AGW denying gang”.
“Despite the robust multi-decadal timescale warming, there exists substantial multi-annual variability in the rate of warming with several periods exhibiting almost no linear trend including the warming hiatus since 1998. The rate of warming over 19982012 (0.05C [0.05 to +0.15] per decade)…”
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whoa! Yet another warmist meme shot to smithereens!!!
Gordon,
your link is to a DRAFT of the IPCC 2013 report. A DRAFT, not finalized. Useless.
Plus, once again, those are YOUR words ‘no significant’, not the IPCC’s as you claim, so go suck a lemon.
Craig Idso, your beloved co2science(lol) guy did a paper on the 2013 IPCC report and nowhere in his paper does it mention the words you use. NOWHERE.
You can’t find where the IPCC said that so you make up stories to claim someone else said it.
You truly are a typical clueless AGWDenier.
bill hunter,
Learn how to read and then comprehend what you have read.
Gordon putting words in the mouth of the IPCC report to try and make his point is purposeful bullshit which you of course fully ascribe to bill.
good luck with that.
And again more bullshit from Gordon.
The IPCC DID NOT call the tend flat.
“After the IPCC called the trend flat …”
Only you did gordo, as usual making up your own shite.
lou…”your link is to a DRAFT of the IPCC 2013 report. A DRAFT, not finalized. Useless”.
Lou, you are seriously thick. It says the same thing in the final draft…on page 53 of 1552…
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
“Despite the robust multi-decadal warming, there exists substantial interannual to decadal variability in the rate of warming, with several periods exhibiting weaker trends (including the warming hiatus since 1998) (Figure TS.1). The rate of warming over the past 15 years (19982012; 0.05 [0.05 to +0.15] C per decade)….”
You are hung up on semantics. The IPCC called it a ‘warming hiatus’.
hiatus…a pause or gap in a sequence, series, or process. A pause in a trend means the trend has gone flat. In this case, the trend went flat for 15 years.
gordon robertson,
Another AGWDenier idiot
a) Good of you to finally link to the IPCC report.
b) An error margin works both days dimwit. BOTH WAYS or are you saying +.15*C is insignificant? You’re not real bright are you?
That’s why the IPCC reported in 2013 “the rate of warming is smaller”. Nothing about a flat trend or not significant, those are only your denier conclusions to try and bolster your bluster.
The IPCC didn’t say what you claim no matter how many times you repeat your lies.
lou…”And again more bullshit from Gordon.
The IPCC DID NOT call the tend flat”.
******
Tough to lose, isn’t it? Tough to be wrong.
The IPCC called it a warming hiatus and hiatus means flat in this case. They could not call it flat because that would suggest the warming had stopped, so they called it a pause. More alarmists bs to support their religious belief that warming is being caused by a trace gas.
However, IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, Kevin Trenberth, claimed the warming had stopped, in the Climategate emails. He was really frustrated by it, calling it a travesty.
lou…”An error margin works both days dimwit. BOTH WAYS or are you saying +.15*C is insignificant? Youre not real bright are you?”
Lou is a denier. The IPCC would not have called it a warming hiatus if their upper error level was true. The +0.15C margin would have meant a 0.2C/decade trend which was obviously not the case since they called it a hiatus.
NOAA had to retroactively fudge the SST to get even a slight trend. Prior to their fudging, they also showed a flat trend.
Trump fudges data. Gordon fudges data. NOAA does not.
gord,
It says ‘weaker trends’ in your quote, NOT flat. Nothing about flat, you make it all up.
You can’t even read your own quotes correctly.
So you can’t answer honestly about your error bar mishap. Of course not.
And I read pg 53 of the 2013 IPCC report you posted. Your quote is not there. Another fabrication.
All bullshit all the time from you gord.
Gordon Robertson says:
However, IPCC Coordinating Lead Author, Kevin Trenberth, claimed the warming had stopped, in the Climategate emails. He was really frustrated by it, calling it a travesty.
WRONG!
Trenberth:
“In my case, one cherry-picked email quote has gone viral and at last check it was featured in over 107,000 items (in Google). Here is the quote: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” It is amazing to see this particular quote lambasted so often. It stems from a paper I published this year bemoaning our inability to effectively monitor the energy flows associated with short-term climate variability. It is quite clear from the paper that I was not questioning the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions and warming, or even suggesting that recent temperatures are unusual in the context of short-term natural variability.”
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/staff/trenbert/emails/
Stop repeating this lie, Gordon.
Lou Maytrees says:
your link is to a DRAFT of the IPCC 2013 report. A DRAFT, not finalized. Useless.
+++++++++++++++++
You do know that the “final draft” is the scientist draft before it goes to the politicians. . . .right?
Hiatus means “pause”.
DA…”That changed when better data came in”.
Better data? You mean the fudged data produced by NOAA, the political hacks who alter data to show warming where there is none.
Gordon and his conspiracy theories. Scientists as political hacks. Aren’t Trump’s hacks running the NOAA?
Aren’t Trump’s hacks running the NOAA?
NOAA is still entrenched with the old corruption. My contact there hopes Trump gets a second term so he can turn whistle-blower after retirement. He says he cannot blow the whistle now because there would be repercussions.
The swamp still needs draining.
Federal whistleblowers have federal protection.
Maybe your friend should summon up some courage if he expects to be taken seriously. Post retirement it will be too late.
David Appell says: Federal whistleblowers have federal protection.
Maybe your friend should summon up some courage if he expects to be taken seriously. Post retirement it will be too late.
=============================
Thats true but only if the only thing in life that matters to you is that you keep getting a paycheck.
Gordon, when are you going to provide evidence for your claim?
You have none and so every day your claim is a lie. You’re a liar. You’re the kind of man who lies regularly and thinks nothing of it.
Do you like being known here as a liar?
David, please stop trolling.
This just out – peer reviewed and published
The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value
https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2019.00223
E,
I wonder what excuse David Appell will come up with to deny this paper meets his gold standard. It is published by the publishers of “nature” (Nature Publishing Group – Springer), and has been peer reviewed.
Oh dear.
Maybe more real scientists are intruding into the pseudoscientific GHE true believer fantasy that thermometers react to CO2 concentrations, and that weather (and hence climate) can be skilfully forecast by means of numerical prediction methods.
Things don’t seem to be going as they should.
“On July 27, 2018, Judge Alsup dismissed a lawsuit targeting ExxonMobil on the basis that two California cities, San Francisco and Oakland, could not prove the energy company was responsible for climate change in the state.”
Weaver sued Ball, and lost.
Mann sued Ball, and lost.
“London, 6 September: The General-Secretary of the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) says that the alarmist narrative on climate change has gone off the rails and criticisedthe news media for provoking unjustified anxiety.”
“The parent agency of the National Weather Service said late Friday that President Trump was correct when he claimed earlier this week that Hurricane Dorian had threatened the state of Alabama.”
What’s the world coming to?
Cheers.
“The paper demonstrates that climate models have no predictive value”
Let’s be real. This paper uses a lot of terminology that you are unfamiliar with and concludes that climate models are too uncertain (wide error bands) to capture any anthropogenic global warming.
Whether or not this paper successfully “demonstrates” this, you have no idea. It could be crap. It could be brilliant. Or it could be a paper with some value but flaws which makes its conclusions over-confident or just wrong.
Point is – you don’t know. And your announcement that it “demonstrates” anything comes from your ignorance not your insight.
Always worth checking Beall’s list when a paper has some odd language or approach. This journal is listed there. FYI.
https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
b,
Reading he paper might help, rather than just claiming the nobody else can understand it.
The author states –
“The unavoidable conclusion is that a temperature signal from anthropogenic CO2 emissions (if any) cannot have been, nor presently can be, evidenced in climate observables.”
If you disagree, why not just say why, and present some objective fact to support your conclusions?
This paper just gives weight to the IPCC statement that future climate states are not predictable.
As to it being in a predatory journal, it seems that his particular journal is published by the same publisher as nature – Springer. Whether or not this is the case, you have not given any reason why the paper’s conclusions are wrong.
The models have no predictive value – they deal with a complex deterministic chaotic system. As Lorenz said “Chaos: When the present determines the future, but the approximate present does not approximately determine the future.”
Cheers.
barry…”This paper uses a lot of terminology that you are unfamiliar with and concludes that climate models are too uncertain (wide error bands) to capture any anthropogenic global warming”.
Will you get off your pedestal of arrogance and look at models for what they are?
1)They are unvalidated. That means no models have been proved to be correct. It also means there is no scientific way of testing them, mainly because they are too darn expensive.
2)Models are programmed by pseudo-scientists. Who else would program a positive feedback representing the atmosphere into a model while giving CO2 a warming effect between 9% and 25%?
3)No one understands the terms to which you refer unless they are good with differential equations. That means you as well. However, the differential equations are applied with a broad generality which cannot possibly cover the specifics of the surface-atmosphere interaction.
4)In other words, climate models are nothing more than expensive toys used by pseudo-scientific weenies.
Gordon,
Your #1 is sheer ignorance.
Your #2 is hilariously wrong.
#3 just shows you don’t understand differential equations. Many of us do, and certainly climate modelers do.
You have no idea about #4, you just like writing it. You wish you understood the science, but since you don’t you’ll just be bullheaded and deny it all.
David, please stop trolling.
Yeah, the two comments following mine are argumentative. Gordon and Mike have no idea if the paper’s methods are good or crap. So they throw it back to me.
Sorry, friends. I don’t have to do that work. The paper is an unknown quantity to this group who can’t parse it. And when no one here can pull it apart cogently and comment on its validity or otherwise, then it is just a talking point, not a discussion.
Eben will not illuminate the power of its line of arguing – he hasn’t got the learning to do that. And neither do the 2 commenters above.
Know your limits, and stop trying to win arguments with bafflegab. This is an outlying paper that suits a certain point of view. It is not oracular. The end.
Classic climate shyster talking point – you are just not smart enough to see it
https://i.postimg.cc/bJPD5Y0M/evidence-emperors-new-clothes.png
Got Ad Hominem ???
barry wants to believe: “This is an outlying paper that suits a certain point of view.”
Translation: The paper is not fit into barry’s pseudoscience.
Know your limits barry, and stop trying to win arguments with bafflegab.
See what smart people say about the Frank paper:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/another-round-of-pat-franks-propagation.html
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/09/08/propagation-of-nonsense/
Eben, of course, has no clue.
barry…”Yeah, the two comments following mine are argumentative. Gordon and Mike have no idea if the papers methods are good or crap. So they throw it back to me”.
We throw it back at you because your replies are diversions. Claiming Mike did not have the competence to understand the paper is based on your arrogance and a red-herring argument to boot.
If MF didn’t constantly come across as a jerk and an ass people might take him seriously.
Alas, he seems unable to restrain himself.
How someone comes across is only of consequence to those who cannot find facts to bolster their disagreements, and need an excuse to avoid admitting their deficiencies.
I do not care what people think of me. Why should I?
If emotionally fragile people choose to feel insulted, annoyed, perturbed and so on, what is it to do with me?
I suspect you have appropriated David Appel’s PhD. You can choose to demonstrate I am wrong, or you can call me a jerk and an ass. Suit yourself.
You still can’t describe your mythical GHE, can you? Just more faith based dogmatism, it would seem.
Cheers.
I will apologise once Mike demonstrates his grasp of the paper is deep enough that he can elucidate the contents with such clarity as to make the whole thing comprehensible to anyone over the age of 15. His comments to date suggest that the paper is way beyond him. Over to to you, Mike.
b,
Why should I care whether you apologise or not? If you understand the paper, no explanation from me is necessary. Are you claiming that you understand the paper, but that I do not? Or do you not understand it, and are trying to finagle me into explaining it to you?
It seems fairly straight forward to me, although I could challenge some of the assumptions the author has made relating to the supposed GHE. However, these are actually irrelevant in relation to accumulated propagated errors contained in so-called climate models.
What part of the paper in particular do you claim I do not understand, and why have you made this particular assumption? Have you any evidence? Do you have faith in your mind reading skills, perhaps? If you do, you are sadly mistaken.
Cheers.
I haven’t read the paper.
The paper means nothing.
The only paper that would mean anything would be the one that actually validated the climate models.
Unvalidated is unvalidated.
There isn’t a lower ranking than that. Its like being a Hindu Untouchable. Its entirely an article of faith. Its like believing ants are going to devour the world. Or Godzilla is going to fly in on a 747.
Mike,
I am claiming that you do not understand the paper well enough to explain it cogently to anyone over the age of 15 so that they understand it. That is the only way anyone can demonstrate a good grasp of material to lay people. There is no other way.
Bill, I suggest you read Chapter 9 of the IPCC 5AR WG1 titled “Evaluation of Climate Models.”
I doubt you will, because you never read any papers as far as I can tell.
David Appell says:
Bill, I suggest you read Chapter 9 of the IPCC 5AR WG1 titled Evaluation of Climate Models.
I doubt you will, because you never read any papers as far as I can tell.
===========================
I started my professional career doing model evaluation work David. I don’t need somebody to help. Academia is great they teach you all the skills of how to development models what they don’t teach you is how to use them.
So they graduate and without ever had a single experience in developing a successful climate model in their lifetime they start making them. And of course they are going to give themselves positive evaluations because anybody or thing that says they are wrong they say is wrong instead.
Nick Stokes showed why Pat Frank’s claims are so wrong they’re ridiculous and come from a major misunderstanding of statistics:
https://moyhu.blogspot.com/2019/09/another-round-of-pat-franks-propagation.html
And Pat Frank’s illogic has been easily debunked over and over again going back to last decade.
Someone much smarter than I had a good analogy, ‘according to Pat Frank, if a watch is 1 minute slow today, it will be 2 minutes slow tomorrow and 365 minutes slow at the end of a year.’
Pure absurdity from Pat Frank yet right up Denier Alleyway.
Lou Maytrees:
“Someone much smarter than I had a good analogy, according to Pat Frank, if a watch is 1 minute slow today, it will be 2 minutes slow tomorrow and 365 minutes slow at the end of a year.”
As somebody who has recently calibrated my rebuilt Swiss watch, and I continue to check it, I can tell you, if Pat Frank is saying this, he would be correct.
It depends on whether the errors are random or systematic.
In Frank’s case, the errors are random. (Note he indicates this by using “+/-” when giving them.)
In this case the errors are added in quadrature (the square root of the sum of squares).
So if you have N measurements of some quantity Q each with error +/-e, the error of their average is e/sqrt(N) and not N*e.
Yes, the error of the average is less than the error of any one measurement.
You can actually convince yourself that the error of the mean is e/sqrt(N) by a simple experiment. In excel use column A to hold a set of exact values. Then use column B to inject random error into each value of A using the RAND function. Do an AVG of columns A and B and compare. Press F5 repeatedly and observe that the difference tends to fall in accordance with e/sqrt(N). This principal has implications in computing the global mean temperature as well since even large errors in individual measurements wash out when computing the mean from a large sample of them.
David, bdgwx, please stop trolling.
Someone else said that the uncertainty in your body weight measured on day one would increase each day, according to Pat Frank.
So at 25 I might weigh 85 kg, give or take a gram; at 80 I might weigh 85 kg, give or take a 10 kilograms.
Or, there could not really be any warming trend, but after years of data tampering, there could be a warming trend!
I think you’re on to something barry….
Retreating glaciers, melting ice sheets, rising sea level, plant and animal movement upward and poleward and earlier flowering all show the planet is warming.
Funny, DA.
I especially liked the “animal movement upward and poleward”.
This phenomenon is well known. I’m not surprised you don’t know about it.
“Fingerprints of global warming on wild animals and plants,”
Root et al, Nature 2003
https://www.uni-landau.de/umwelt/study/content/files/archiv/H.Schulz/WS09/Biodiversitaet_und_Naturschutz/Root%20et%20al%202003.pdf
“Half of All Species Are on the MoveAnd We’re Feeling It,”
National Geographic, 4/27/17
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/04/climate-change-species-migration-disease/
These kinds of studies crack me up.
Yes species move with climate change they have since the beginning of time.
National Geographic writes this:
“Scientists have long assumed that species would shift their range as climate conditions shift. They just didn’t expect it would happen so fast.”
WTF!!! The scientists NG must be talking to must live in their parents basement. Species are moving all the time. Have been forever. Just ask any hunter or fisherman.
Then these from the other study:
———“Because of the unevenness of the location of the data (for
example, a preponderance of studies in the United Kingdom),”———-
Hmmm so its not a global study but a regional one. Interesting.
then, ———“The actual amount of change shown can be determined for those studies that examined shifts in spring phenologies”———-
Seems they have a study showing spring occurs 5 days earlier in the UK.
Then finally the coup de grace!!
———“Because we were looking for trends, we also excluded
studies examining climatic cycles, such as North Atlantic Oscillation and El Nino/Southern Oscillation.”———-
So let me get this one packed in correctly! They excluded all the studies where the study said they were looking for the migratory response from natural warming cycles!!!
Gee don’t want any studies like that in the study do we. LOL!
I mean we have to maintain some degree of plausible deniability that you hadn’t read those papers and found they concluded there was a pattern of temporary temperature changes were occurring in the UK accounting for all this species movement right? Got get all that in there to erect an imaginary Chinese wall to protect the conclusions.
This study should have Madison Avenue doll it up so as to serve its real purpose of suggesting they have the skill set and the proper political inclination to be good choice for a much larger study. . . .no?
You only quoted part of the paper’s sentence. The full sentence is
“Because of the unevenness of the location of the data (for
example, a preponderance of studies in the United Kingdom), we
were able to have large enough sample sizes in each group only by
dividing them into two groups along 508 latitude circles.”
showing they in fact took care to get large enough sample sizes.
Yes, they excluded short-term climate trends. They’re interested in the signal, not the noise.
Nature is a high quality journal that aren’t capable of being laughed off by someone only plucking out pieces out of context.
I was hoping you would give me a rundown on how they avoided confusing this study with a study of the North Atlantic Oscillation. LMAO!!
Salts on Mars Are a Mixed Blessing
“Its a major component of solid rocket propellants. It allows water to exist as liquid on Mars, despite atmospheric pressure at the Martian surface being roughly 0.6 percent that on Earth. It also can be broken down to release oxygen that astronauts and future colonists in a Mars settlement could breathe.
Its called perchlorate and its abundant on Mars 10,000 times more abundant in Martian dirt than in soils and sands of Earth. That may sound like a good thing, considering the useful properties of perchlorate, but theres also a flip side.”
So, it possible perchlorate could Mars not viable place to live.
{perchlorate might make alien life on Mars not possible {or possible}}
Lots of people are worried about. But as article says it could be mixed blessing. Or I would say, it could all good {or not}.
But I really interesting is making lakes on Mars. And if solar ponds will be used on Mars. Solar ponds could relate to perchlorates.
Solar Ponds, Wiki:
“A solar pond is, simply, a pool of saltwater which collects and stores solar thermal energy. The saltwater naturally forms a vertical salinity gradient also known as a “halocline”, in which low-salinity water floats on top of high-salinity water. The layers of salt solutions increase in concentration (and therefore density) with depth. Below a certain depth, the solution has a uniformly high salt concentration.
When the sun’s rays contact the bottom of a shallow pool, they heat the water adjacent to the bottom. When water at the bottom of the pool is heated, it becomes less dense than the cooler water above it, and convection begins. Solar ponds heat water by impeding this convection. Salt is added to the water until the lower layers of water become completely saturated. High-salinity water at the bottom of the pond does not mix readily with the low-salinity water above it, so when the bottom layer of water is heated, convection occurs separately in the bottom and top layers, with only mild mixing between the two. This greatly reduces heat loss, and allows for the high-salinity water to get up to 90 C while maintaining 30 C low-salinity water. This hot, salty water can then be pumped away for use in electricity generation, through a turbine or as a source of thermal energy.”
And:
Advantages and disadvantages
“-The approach is particularly attractive for rural areas in developing countries. Very large area collectors can be set up for just the cost of the clay or plastic pond liner.
-The accumulating salt crystals have to be removed and can be a valuable by-product and a maintenance expense.
-No need for a separate collector.
The extremely-large thermal mass means power is generated night and day.
Relatively low-temperature operation means solar energy conversion is typically less than 2%”
[One aspect has to with temperature difference and Mars has colder air and/or ground temperature. Though at Mars distance you also lower max temperature. So with Earth difference is about 50 K, or about 80 C to air/environmental temperature of 30 C. Mars could be 40 C to air temperature of -100 C. So, might more than 2%]
“-Due to evaporation, non-saline water is constantly required to maintain salinity gradients”
[On Mars evaporation could be dealt with a number of ways.]
So one could have different kinds of lakes on Mars- fresh water, saltwater, Saltwater with perchlorate {a salt}, or any kind polluted water.
A use of lake on Mars can related to it’s a transparent liquid which has high pressure with depth. And Mars atmosphere lacks enough pressure {for humans or even plants to breathe}.
Plus humans use a lot of water.
Now, how warm is glass greenhouse on Mars. And how does solar pond work on Mars with it’s lower gravity {than Earth}?
A greenhouse on Earth doesn’t have higher air pressure than outside air. One can also have greenhouse on Mars with about same pressure as the Mars atmosphere. Purpose of that could be to prevent water from evaporating- small pond with greenhouse over it. You could also have pond with frozen water at the surface- and ice acts glass greenhouse {reducing rather blocking evaporation {or ice will evaporate}.
If have greenhouse which is pressurized- say 3 psi- then the glass or plastic has to strong enough to withstand the difference in pressure. Or a square are has 144 square inches, force at 3 psi is
3 times 144 = 432 lbs of force per square foot. This quite problem if you want a large greenhouse which 3 psig or more.
Though a depth of water can provide 3 psi of outside pressure.
With Earth 10 meter depth of water gives 14.7 psi. Or 1 meter depth is 1.47 psi, so 2 meter depth is about 3 psi.
So, if had hemisphere 1 meter high and 2 meter in diameter, put top of hemisphere about 1 meter under the surface. And hold it down, and fill with air, you fill it with about 3 psi of air pressure. That is basically a diving bell. So with dome strong enough to withstand about 1 psi of pressure, could hold about 3 psi of air pressure under water.
With Mars with 1/3rd gravity, it would have to 3 times lower under the water.
Returning to Earth, the dome has volume of about 2.1 cubic meter and weight plus force to hold it under water is about 2100 kg {2.1 tonnes}.
With Mars it’s 1/3 of this, 700 kg of force, though the earth weight is still 2.1 tons, which would weigh 1/3 less or 700 kg on Mars.
So need anchor which weight about 2.1 tons on Earth and rope/cables which lift 700 kg to hold it down, or add structural weight equal to 2.1 tons on Earth. Or anchor weight same as Earth but cable strength is a 1/3th. So anchor on Mars could Mars dirt covering netting/tarp at bottom of lake. Do this before making lake. Or use bunch sand bags if done later.
But I wondering if you could have solar ponds on top the lake. Or solar pond can do more heat. Solar ponds are used for mining, could use solar pond to mine perchlorate?
Now, you don’t have to put solar pond on top of lake in order to mine perchlorate.
But solar pond lose a fair amount heat to ground they are on, and because of this, bigger solar pond are more efficient.
But solar pond are on lake, you would be heating the lake- it’s really a heat loss if want a warmer lake.
Missing links:
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2016/06/20/perchlorate-salt-mars-surface/#.XXQo0lRKiUk
And wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_pond
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade.
Remains?
The lack of acceleration of “warming” must be denied.
Thomas…”The lack of acceleration of warming must be denied”.
Not only that, Thomas, the trend includes 18 years of re-warming, 15 years of a flat trend, and a slow recovery from the warming caused by the 2016 El Nino.
True warming from 1979-2019 remains around 0.2C and it happened all at once circa 2001.
Robertson
“…18 years of re-warming”
Yeah.
Complete Robertson nonsense.
He is convinced that a warming trend occuring below a baseline is not the same as a warming trend occuring “above that baseline!
What did the rewarming 10 years ago, Robertson, as UAH’s baseline was 1979-1998, like RSS still has today?
I enjoy already now what Robertson will tell us around 2025, when Roy Spencer or his successor will move the reference period aka baseline from 1981-2010 to 1991-2020!
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
(You were never and will never become) Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Please, please, try to become an adult.
I do not know why you feel the urge to write this endlessly, but it is far from brave to do it here without real moderation, especially because you are very partial in your choice of commentators, to say the least.
Why don’t you show us your ‘cojones’, as Spanish people name the ‘true balls’, by posting such comments, say ten times in one single day, at WUWT, or Climate Etc?
I would then obviously have some more respect to you.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
I calculate the acceleration of UAH LT’s anomalies to be 0.011 C/decade^2.
and what was it 5years ago?
a(Aug 2014) = -0.048 +/- 0.036 C/dec2
David Appell says:
a(Aug 2014) = -0.048 +/- 0.036 C/dec2
============================
Wow in reverse!
Since we know ENSO as basically a weather event that influences longer term trends if at the ends instead of the middle. . . .warming was slowing down from the early warming. The warmists are hoping for a “step” we will have to see what happens next.
You can’t ignore El Ninos unless you ignore the La Ninas.
Since 1979 the average ENSO state has been neutral, as measured by the MEI v2.
Since 2000 it has been mildly La Nina-ish.
data:
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/data/correlation/meiv2.data
thats why the 1996 to the present presents a fair case.
Scott R
I know, you believe exclusively in your own narrative.
Nevertheless, let me propose this paper:
https://orbit.dtu.dk/files/128885687/icesheets_sealevel_issi_v3.pdf
Please try to spend a bit more than 10 minutes to read it.
Ignore the sea level rise aspect, it has nothing to do with the discussion. SLR exists, but we are talking about surface mass balance.
If after having carefully read that paper, you still pretend, without being able to explain why, that GRACE does not consider snow mass gains in the balance, than I will stop the discussion because it has no sense anymore.
Scott R
Addendum :
https://data1.geo.tu-dresden.de/gis_gmb/
(Select English of course.)
My question to you is all the time the same: how can a satellite pair reacting to gravity field changes due to mass changes, make a specific difference between loss and gain, and thus ‘forget’ mass gain through snowfall while not ‘forgetting’ mass loss through melt flow?
binny…”My question to you is all the time the same: how can a satellite pair reacting to gravity field changes due to mass changes, make a specific difference between loss and gain, and thus forget mass gain through snowfall while not forgetting mass loss through melt flow?”
The satellite telemetry does cannot distinguish between the mass of a snowpack, the ice, and the underlying bedrock. Neither can it distinguish very well between the ice and the surrounding ocean.
What you are claiming is that the snow and ice on Everest creates a gravitational field while the massive bedrock making up Everest has nothing to do with it.
It’s like claiming the icing on a cake contributes to the mass while the cake body underneath does not.
BTW…the ice on Greenland is held there by gravity and the glaciers flow downhill, not due to the surrounding ice and snow but due to the massive amount of rock underneath.
I fear that GRACE is yet another unvalidated model.
I fear that GRACE is yet another unvalidated model.
Make sure you don’t try to find out.
David, please stop trolling.
binny…”I know, you believe exclusively in your own narrative.
Nevertheless, let me propose this paper:”
******
The paper is written by an alarmist and should be carefully read with that in mind.
Right away, even the alarmist admits there are problems with all the methods used to ESTIMATE the Greenland ice mass. He reveals that a good deal of modeling is involved in the ice loss estimates.
The author admits that snow pack and firn are ESTIMATED.
“Three types of Earth observation methods are in use for this purpose: satellite altimetry, where direct measurements of height changes by laser (ICESat) or radar (ERS-1/-2, EnviSat, CryoSat-2) altimetry, in combination with climatological/glaciological models for firn (snow) density and compaction, are used to estimate mass loss; input-output methods, where measurements of ice flow velocities from synthetic aperture radar data (ERS, EnviSat, RadarSat) over outlet glaciers are combined with glacier thickness data and models for accumulation and surface mass balance in the interior are used to give a net mass balance; and gravity field change missions (GRACE), where the mass changes are measured directly.
*****
All the above space-based estimation schemes are affected by various types of errors. Conventional pulse-limited radar satellite altimetry does not cover the most sloping and rugged parts of the icesheets, which are the most rapidly changing parts; furthermore radar altimetry is strongly affected by radar penetration into snow and melt events forming ice lenses in the snowpack, especially in Greenland (Nilsson et al, 2015). The input-output method is limited by lack of information on outlet glacier ice thickness, especially in Antarctica, as well as uncertainty in interior surface mass balance models, derived from regional climate models. GRACE accuracy is limited by signal leakage from adjacent ice caps, land hydrology, unmodelled ocean mass changes, and especially for Antarctica large uncertainty in glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA) models (Wahr et al, 1998)”.
The point is that radar and gravity measurements are complicated by the terrain being measured. Therefore, those doing the measurements have to fudge the data to provide their estimates.
I might ad a caveat. Alarmists are going to estimate on the side of AGW.
If you’re going to quote something, give your source:
https://is.gd/Ow8Eiq
from Google Books
Note the first sentence of your paper’s abstract:
“Thirteen years of GRACE data provide an excellent picture of the current mass changes of Greenland and Antarctica….”
Forsberg et al, Surv Geophys 2017
https://is.gd/Ow8Eiq
DA…”If youre going to quote something, give your source:”
Why?? Binny posted the link and I referenced it in my reply.
Why? So people can check your citation. To give credit where it’s due. In your case, it doesn’t say what you think it said — the authors think GRACE is doing an “excellent” job.
David, please stop trolling.
“Therefore, those doing the measurements have to fudge the data to provide their estimates.”
As usual, a dumb, redundant ‘comment’ by this blog’s most ignorant and most pretentious boaster.
No facts. Polemic, discrediting, denigrating.
That is all the Robertsons are able to do.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
(You were never and will never become) Dr Roys Emergency Moderation Team
Please, please, try to become an adult.
I do not know why you feel the urge to write this endlessly, but it is far from brave to do it here without real moderation, especially because you are very partial in your choice of commentators, to say the least.
Why dont you show us your cojones, as Spanish people name the true balls, by posting such comments, say ten times in one single day, at WUWT, or Climate Etc?
I would then obviously have some more respect to you.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
binny…I gave you a whole slew of facts in another reply. Are you too stupid to understand it?
You are the denigrator. You cannot reply scientifically because who have not the slightest clue what you are talking about. Therefore, you reply purely with ad homs and slurs.
In the paper you reference on GRACE they admit the GRACE telemetry is reliant on climate models for current oceans levels, ice levels, etc.
The GRACE methodology is far too reliant on precision between two satellites to get gravity anomalies. We know from the NOAA sats used by UAH that it is difficult to maintain precise orbits between sats that do not require it. How the heck do they expect to maintain precise orbits between the two GRACE sats?
It has been noted that GRACE differs significantly in the measurement of water volume from what was expected. I think it’s measurements are in error and that includes finding a loss of ice mass in Antarctica where other measurements have found an increase.
I think the ice mass data is fudged.
Gordon, you have keen insight.
Yes, the GRACE nonsense is as invalid as claiming Moon rotates on its axis. All the clowns have to do is calculate the change in force between the mass of a meter of new snow on Greenland and the mass of a GRACE satellite. Then, compare that to the force between the satellite and the mass of Earth.
If they had any appreciation for reality they would then realize the errors far outweigh any useful information.
And I haven’t even mentioned the fact that Sun and Moon are also affecting the satellite.
The clowns remain locked in their pseudoscience.
Nothing new.
“If they had any appreciation for reality they would then realize the errors far outweigh any useful information.”
What are those errors — their numerical values?
DA, are you admitting you can’t do the simple calculations?
I’m challenging you to show that you can.
I bet you can’t.
David, please stop trolling.
DA, all you clowns have to do is calculate the change in force between the mass of a meter of new snow on Greenland and the mass of a GRACE satellite. Then, compare that to the force between the satellite and the mass of Earth.
If you had any appreciation for reality you would then realize the errors far outweigh any useful information.
”
If they had any appreciation for reality they would then realize the errors far outweigh any useful information.”
I know, JD and Gordon, science is hard! And hard to understand! And boring! And so it’s dumb! And probably doesnt even work!
You guys remind me of the talking Barbie Doll that said “Math class is tough!”
Anonymous troll Nate has only insults, false accusations, and misrepresentations to offer.
Nothing new.
GR wrote:
How the heck do they expect to maintain precise orbits between the two GRACE sats?
Who said GRACE relies on a precise orbit?
Why are their two GRACE satellites instead of one, Gordon?
“…there…”
DA…”Who said GRACE relies on a precise orbit?
Why are their two GRACE satellites instead of one, Gordon?”
Hey, Mike, I think there’s a gotcha here.
The orbits have to be precise otherwise their measure of mass would differ.
The two sats track each other with the theory, and I mean theory, that if one hits a gravity anomaly, the anomaly will cause it to accelerate slightly (and I would guess decelerate at other times) . Therefore it increases/decreases the distance between them slightly. When the trailing sat hits the anomaly a short while later, it accelerates as well and catches up.
That process is what they claim allows them to detect differences in mass. I think it’s more sci-fi than fact. They are using GPS units and I just bet they are adjusting for time dilation. That stupidity would explain why they are seeing less ice mass in Antarctica when others are seeing an increase.
Don’t forget, GRACE has the word ‘climate’ in it and it is related to NASA. That means it is looking for a decrease in ice mass and the algorithms are likely GISSed (fudged) to produce a lower mass of ice globally.
I would venture a bet that NASA is claiming Greenland is losing ice with a 38% confidence level.
right gravity is affected by distance. How much variation you get in orbit is probably multiplied by the fact it detecting small changes in gravity induced by the piled up ice, not the entire gravity pulling on the satellite. Thus that ratio is going require higher precision than the gravity holding the satellite in orbit, if the precision of inches of snow compared to an 8000 foot thick planet, wow, thats some superfine precision. they must have some sort of ground truthing for this.
I don’t think GRACE needs any ground truthing — that’s what’s revolutionary about it. It only needs GPS and a measurement of the distance between the two satellites, which can be measured to within 10 micros over 220 km:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRACE_and_GRACE-FO#Measurement_principle
everything needs ground truthing David.
bill…”How much variation you get in orbit is probably multiplied by the fact it detecting small changes in gravity induced by the piled up ice, not the entire gravity pulling on the satellite”.
The GRACE sats carry no instrumentation to independently assess variations in gravity. They are only concerned with the local effects of gravitational acceleration between the two satellites.
Of course, I don’t understand this at a detailed level but it seems to me that a lot of assumptions have been made about how gravity operates and what has the major effect on gravitational acceleration.
When the onboard instrumentation detects a difference in acceleration between the sats, I hardly think the cause of the acceleration can be that accurately determined.
The project seems to have been originated by climate alarmists so I am sure they have been looking for the outcomes they receive. I am equally sure they reject alternative explanations.
Robertson
Discredit, denigrate, lie. That’s all you are able to, like all ignorant boasters of your kind.
Bindidon, please stop trolling.
SMH
Yes, a mass accelerates in response to a gravitational force.
Yes, time dilation is real — experiments prove it. Go learn them.
GPS satellites reply on both special relativity’s time dilation and general relativity’s gravitational redshift. You don’t understand either but you’d like to, but you won’t take the time to learn. So you just deny everything because it’s the easiest path available to someone who doesn’t care.
David, please stop trolling.