Home/Blog2019 was the third warmest year (+0.44 deg. C) in the 41 year satellite record, after 2016 (+0.52 deg. C) and 1998 (+0.48 deg. C).
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2019 was +0.56 deg. C, statistically unchanged from the November value of +0.55 deg. C.
The yearly rankings over the 41-year satellite-based temperature record shows 2019 as the third warmest, behind 2016 and 1998.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Various regional LT departures from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 24 months are:
YEAR MO GLOBE NHEM. SHEM. TROPIC USA48 ARCTIC AUST 2018 01 +0.29 +0.51 +0.07 -0.10 +0.70 +1.39 +0.52 2018 02 +0.25 +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 +0.10 -0.14 +0.06 +1.02 +0.84 2018 05 +0.16 +0.38 -0.05 +0.02 +1.90 +0.14 -0.24 2018 06 +0.20 +0.33 +0.06 +0.12 +1.10 +0.77 -0.41 2018 07 +0.30 +0.38 +0.23 +0.28 +0.41 +0.24 +1.49 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 +0.28 2018 10 +0.20 +0.27 +0.12 +0.30 +0.20 +1.08 +0.43 2018 11 +0.26 +0.24 +0.28 +0.46 -1.16 +0.68 +0.55 2018 12 +0.25 +0.35 +0.15 +0.30 +0.24 +0.69 +1.20 2019 01 +0.38 +0.35 +0.41 +0.36 +0.53 -0.15 +1.15 2019 02 +0.37 +0.47 +0.28 +0.43 -0.02 +1.04 +0.05 2019 03 +0.35 +0.44 +0.25 +0.41 -0.55 +0.96 +0.59 2019 04 +0.44 +0.38 +0.51 +0.54 +0.50 +0.92 +0.91 2019 05 +0.32 +0.29 +0.35 +0.40 -0.61 +0.98 +0.39 2019 06 +0.47 +0.42 +0.52 +0.64 -0.64 +0.91 +0.35 2019 07 +0.38 +0.33 +0.44 +0.45 +0.11 +0.33 +0.87 2019 08 +0.39 +0.38 +0.39 +0.42 +0.17 +0.44 +0.24 2019 09 +0.62 +0.64 +0.59 +0.60 +1.14 +0.75 +0.57 2019 10 +0.46 +0.64 +0.28 +0.31 -0.03 +0.99 +0.50 2019 11 +0.55 +0.56 +0.54 +0.55 +0.21 +0.56 +0.38 2019 12 +0.56 +0.61 +0.50 +0.58 +0.92 +0.66 +0.94
The UAH LT global anomaly image for December, 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
Very similar to the MTD on Weatherbell a few days ago. Do we know if they use satellite or ground station or some combo for their temps?
If you are referring to the CFSv2 data, that will be influenced by surface thermometers where they exist, but in many regions, it’s going to be a model-based best estimate of surface temperatures using satellite measurements (including satellite SST measurements), weather balloons, and aircraft data combined with the the dynamics, thermodynamics, and radiation in the model as the model atmosphere evolves over time. So, it’s everything including the kitchen sink… a best estimate based upon observations and physics.
December was another warm month, as AGW continues. We share the pain of those in Australia feeling the impacts in their lives.
Yes, Australia is on fire now… but don’t blame AGW for what’s happening here. It’s all the fault of our stupid environmentalists who have been stopping controlled burn-offs. We now have so much fuel on the ground in our forests that when a fire starts, it very quickly turns into an inferno and is impossible to stop.
skeptikal, While fuel buildup might make the fires worse, that has nothing to do with the record high temperatures and drought conditions. Unfortunately, one can’t say that any particular event is totally the result of AGW, at least, not yet…
Unfortunately the record high temperatures you refer to in Australia might not actually be factual because BOM (Bureau of Meterology) have been adjusting historical data for years and their current measurements do not comply with World measurement standards. One only has to look at Jennifer Morahasy’s website to start questioning what is being reported by BOM. When BOM refer to record highs they conveneniently ignore maximums recorded around 1900. I feel as though I’m living the book 1984 where history is rewritten to suit!
Don’t believe such crap by ideologically motivated “blog scientists”. Leave it to the pros instead..
Temperature readings by old and new equipment are simply not comparable, the old ones being more prone to spurious solar heating.
In Belgium for instance, the metorological service has through “side by side” studies found that the old equipment gave 2.2 degrees C warmer tmax readings than the modern equipment.
https://www.brusselstimes.com/all-news/belgium-all-news/health/61223/belgiums-highest-recorded-temperature-could-be-broken-on-thursday/
What happened with the old 38.8 tmax national temperature record from 1947 at Uccle? Well, despite the 2.2 C handicap it was broken by 39.7 at Uccle, and 41.8 elsewhere in Belgium during the July heatwave.
I’m living near Belgium and the “July-Heatwave” was about 3-5 days long that came from Sahara-winds. In the beginning of August it was so cold i had to wear gloves on my E-Bike with temperatures at 8° C at 7:30 am. The hole year felt overall not like the 2nd warmest year since 1881, the DWD is claiming (with 2018 being the hottest). 2003 was definitely warmer. The DWD has not released any station-data yet for 2019, so i have to guess the temps. The 30 years before i can’t see any trend that might reverse itself again:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/5dz4zznf8d9lnmb/Lommersum-vs-Stammheim_1989-2018.jpg?dl=0
Most long-term stations in Germany are placed in the inner city, so under UHI-influence. Here’s a comparison of 7 Berlin-Stations that show up to 1,59° C difference on similar altitudes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9wfgxem637s4e6q/7-Berlin-Stations-July-2018.jpg?dl=0
With about 65 million vehicles burning fuel and emitting heat nowadays and many more planes causing cirrus clouds with a positive heat influence, most of the warming could be man-made, but not or little CO2-related.
Danyel,
Interesting.
But still anecdotal, local, and fleeting.
No substitute for comprehensive objective data and analysis.
Even the BOM in Australia admit they pay no heed to temperatures recorded before 1910. I have no doubt that recent records are not actually the maximums Australia has ever experienced! We have even had BOM admit that a recent record they reported was exceeded by one in 1929 on television!
John, this contradicts what skeptics say about global warming from the 19th to 20th century being a "rebound" out of the Little Ice Age that preceded it.
Are you saying that Australia was different from the rest of the planet, and that the LIA was not global?
Jennifer Morahasy has just been given a sound thrashing and sent to bed without any supper by Tamino. She is in disgrace.
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2020/01/06/bushfire-and-homophobia/
what are using acorn sat data v1 or v2. There’s nothing like raw data to get real temperatures. Have you seen the difference in temperatures from the v1 version to the v2 version ? The BOM said is was wrong so they “updated” it twice in 6 years.There’s nothing like a good homoginisation to fit the bill
Nate, when you compare my graphs with the satellite-data, there is a good correlation, just with a time lag of a year or so, because El Nino/La Nina events hit us later due AMOC-driven climate. I did this with places around hole Germany with very similar results.
Where i live i can walk 2 km uphill and get the chilly climate of the 60’s or drive to the next city to simulate the warming of the past 50 years. The Munich temperatures are also 1.3 C higher than the next station in a rural area on the same altitude or just 0.2 C lower than the next station to my place with a 400 m lower altitude.
Average temperatures just don’t tell anything and what is rather positive in the North might be deadly in places like Delhi, but i guess this warming is decreasing with lower degree of latitude. Today most of the temperature-anomalies are over Russia with just -10 to -30 degree C instead of -30 to -50. They are probably not taking a sun-bath despite the unusual ‘warm’ weather or getting any heat-strokes.
https://climatereanalyzer.org/wx/DailySummary/#t2anom
“Average temperatures just don’t tell anything”
about the local changes in weather pattern that may accompany them.
For example, globally the LIA was ~0.5 C of cooling, but has been associated with famines in N Europe and maybe elsewhere.
How do you make sense of that, given that you can just walk 1 km to get that amount of temp change?
Nate, to your above comment about LIA being 0.5C of cooling, you don’t actually know, nor do we know, what the actual global average drop was during the LIA. We have no records. We have proxy data from tree rings and ice cores and they are sparse as hell. A LOT of interpolation and estimation goes into guessing how hot or cold the global climate was prior to the satellite era. A hell of a lot more goes into guessing how hot or cold the planet was before the thermometer was even invented.
Sure, I am just going with the typical findings of the reconstructions.
And ~ means roughly. There is considerable uncertainty on the number, and even whether it was globally synchronous.
Chris says:
“We have no records. We have proxy data from tree rings and ice cores and they are sparse as hell.”
Here’s some more methods:
– Boreholes
– Chironomid transfer function
– Diatom mat
– Foram mat
– Foram transfer functions
– Ice core δ18o
– δd
– Mbt
– Mg/ca
– Pollen
– Mat. radiolaria transfer function
– Tex86
– Uk’37
– Speleothems
And yes, we have records too, of harvest dates for example.
“We have no records.’
We actually have instrumental records for Central England CET record and the Central Europe.
Both show at most 0.5 C sustained reductions during that period relative to the overall < 1950 average.
https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~rjsw/PalaeoPDFs/GlaserRiemann2009.pdf
Svelte,
Everything you mentioned is proxy data. Proxy data doesn’t tell you with precision what the temperatures were. You can infer some patterns in some specific areas, but you can’t get to within 0.13C / decade level of precision with data like that. Your error bounds is going to be greater than the observed warming over the last 100 years. It is still extremely sparse. Satellites can map the whole planet at a given time. Your proxy data is extremely local for a very specific area. So not only do you have error bounds with the proxy data (which involves inferring a temperature range based on something like C14 content or Beryllium content, etc), but you would have to interpolate across the planet using a very sparse data set to try to come up with a global average temperature. Interpolation itself brings in even more error bounds to the equation. And so, you can’t infer decadal level, global changes from data like that, period. There’s lots of ways to manipulate proxy data to paint a picture of the past that is favorable to any story you want to tell.
As for growing records, Nate, they themselves are proxies that tell you about the climate in a very specific region. Not with any specificity about temperature. Those records are extremely sparse. For many of these centuries you are going off of as little as 1-15 reports for years 1000AD-1500AD. And it doesn’t get much better after 1500AD.
When you try to blend proxy data with considerable error bounds of at least 1-2C, if not more, which are distributed in various ways both geographically and temporally with data that is accrued with much higher precision after the invention of the thermometer and overall economic and educational expansion which increased the density of records in the 1800s and 1900s, you’re telling a fiction if you don’t acknowledge the error bounds, and the correct magnitude of such error bounds.
That’s why you get conflicting studies on the Medieval Warm Period. Some say the MWP was cooler than the modern warm period. Some say it was warmer. See below for examples arguing for a warmer MWP:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2017PA003237
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0025322709001364
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0033589401923130
These type of studies might be useful for centennial scale transitions in climate change and for recognizing overall trends, but to argue that we have global, decadal-level precision to within a tenth of a degree celsius…it’s not tenable.
Article on LIA Australia
https://jennifermarohasy.com/2007/07/the-little-ice-age-in-australia/
Good borehole validation of the temperature record there John:
Here is a list of the worst fires in Australia. Note how the article points out the similarities between all of the fires. From the link ” … The most devastating fires are usually preceded by record high temperatures, low relative humidity and strong winds, which create ideal conditions for the rapid spread of fire. Though much of Australia has come out of severe drought…”. … https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/topics/science-environment/2011/11/the-worst-bushfires-in-australias-history/
The above was written in 2011. Today’s firestorm down under fits the exact description of the all of the previous firestorms, with the exception of the magnitude of the number of arson/suspected arson fires which aided in setting this monster fire.
The reasons for the drought, at least as bad as the one in 1900 called the Federation Drought, and the very high temperatures that have primed the bushfires (no worse that other very bad historical bushfires, higher property damage is simply significantly more unsuitable homes have been built on the historical fire grounds in the past 30 years) is very well know. It is on the Australian Bureau of Meteorology website if someone takes the time to look.
It was a very high positive phase of the Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD), couple with the late arrival of the monsoonal trough. The IOD was the highest since the phenomena was first identified in 1999 and records commenced. There is no known scientific connection between the IOD and greenhouse gas levels.
The IOD has since returned to a neutral phase, the monsoon trough has arrives, and just as expected good rains and mild conditions have returned to much of Australia.
P.S. Australia experiences on average 50,000 bushfires in an given year. That is not a ‘typo’, its 50,000. Source: Australia Bureau of Statistics.
I suppose it is environmentalists who have brought on the necessity for water restrictions.
Yes it most certainly is,
They have stopped at least a dozen big dam projects in the last 40 years.
Because of greenie agenda and interference, no major dam has been built servicing capital cities in that period.
There have been numerous dams built in the last 40 years.
https://www.ancold.org.au/?page_id=24
As this subthread is about the Australian bush fires, not sure why dams “servicing capital cities” should be the point of focus.
Thanks for the information showing that basically all dams built in the last 40 years have been tiny.
Anyone can see that there have been very few in the NSW fire area or Victoria fire area.
You should have looked at what you were putting forward before emphasising and supporting the point I was making.
Where are the current water restrictions in Australia?
Where no new large dams have been built.
Just to highlight barry’s incompetence.
Here is, from his data, the dam capacity added in Australia per decade
https://i.postimg.cc/Dyf50pvj/Australian-Dam-capacity-added-per-decade.png
The population growth is of course a very different shape, isn’t it barry.
Do your homework before making a fool of yourself.
So dam capacity has increased, with the peak around 1980. New dams have been built (including near where the current fires have raged), capacity of old dams has been increased (one serving Canberra increased 20-fold in 2013).
I’m not sure what your point is any more, but it seems you think that dam capacity should increase in lockstep with population.
One thing I am sure of is that you are here to duke it out rather than discuss and learn. Boring.
Thanks for ADMITTING that far less storage has been added in the last 40 years.
Didn’t have much choice, as your own data shows that to be a fact.
That is the period of most rapid population and urban expansion.
Glad you finally understand the FACT that way too few dams have been built in the last 40 years
Perhaps you are capable of facing facts. !
What you have apparently learnt is how to slither out of facing the facts once proven wrong by data.
Anyone can see just how little capacity has been added since the 1990s
And yes, that include the Cotter upgrade.
https://i.postimg.cc/Dyf50pvj/Australian-Dam-capacity-added-per-decade.png
“Thanks for ADMITTING that far less storage has been added in the last 40 years.”
Why deny the truth?
“What you have apparently learnt is how to slither out of facing the facts once proven wrong by data.”
Uh… apparently not, according to your first quote.
And… actually not.
But you started by blaming this on greenies.
So what sort of tabulated data do you have on that? I appreciate you have provided some numbers to substantiate what we already agree on. So now how about some facts and fiugures on greenies preventing dams being built.
Here’s a fact – the Abbott govt avolished the federal body tasked with advising on water reform – including dam building – the year after it came to power.
Fuckin’ Abbott greenies.
Again, the number and size of dams doesn’t affect rainfall or drought conditions. Goldminor pointed out that wildfires are expected during hot and dry conditions. The last year was Australia’s hottest and driest ever recorded.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-02/2019-was-australias-hottest-and-driest-year-on-record/11837312
And what does a former Fire and Rescue NSW commissioner and a councillor on the Climate Council say about blaming greenies?
“Warmer, drier conditions with higher fire danger are preventing agencies from conducting as much hazard reduction burning – it is often either too wet, or too dry and windy to burn safely. Blaming “greenies” for stopping these important measures is a familiar, populist, but basically untrue claim.”
Yeah, this falsehood is quite popular among ‘skeptic’ commentators.
The concern about burn-off in these conditions is not just waranted, therer have been actual properties destroyed from burn off.
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/homes-lost-after-firefighters-lose-control-of-mega-blaze-backburn-20191216-p53k98.html
It’s not the greenies preventing it, it’s nature and the advice of the fire authorities. Lord how some people love a lie that stokes their agenda.
“Lord how some people love a lie that stokes their agenda.”
Yep, especially the SMH !!
Don’t offer quotes without a link to them. This is just basic common sense.
Sorry – my bad for not including the link to the original letter:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/this-is-not-normal-what-s-different-about-the-nsw-mega-fires-20191110-p5395e.html
Burning is not the only method for reducing wildfire risk. You can raze down brush too.
Some of these towns have been burned three times already.
Here is the story of a town that did everything right, nearly burned up anyway in September, and then got the big one in December.
https://t.co/ikC1aKayIX?amp=1
This is not just bad land management. It is the hottest year in Australia history. Cant prove or any this disaster was caused by AGW. Can’t prove any cancer was caused by cigarettes. But the evidence is pretty damning.
Heat does not cause wildfires. Wood has to hit 500F+ to begin to burn. So lightning can do this, but also, humans can do this. An abundance of CO2 has zero impact on wildfires. A lack of H2O on the other hand, can certainly exacerbate wildfires. And drought-prone regions like Australia certainly get them.
Now, here’s another nuanced point. Since CO2 acts as plant fertilizer, improving photosynthesis and causing the earth to green…there is more potential fuel for wildfires when a drought hits. The good news the plants will grow back more quickly than they otherwise wood in a 400PPM environment than a 300PPM environment. The bad news is, when drought hits, as it inevitably does in certain regions…there will be more fuel for the fire.
Temperatures are an important metric in quantifying wildfire risk. The relevant issues being atmospheric stability and dewpoint depressions both of which are dependent upon the temperature. Higher surface temperatures are correlated with higher wildfire risks using objective indices like the Haines index for example. In addition prolonged periods of higher temperatures can feedback to make the atmosphere more unstable and dryer. There’s actually a whole branch of meteorology dedicated to fire weather forecasts.
There’s been lots of criticism of the Haines Index from Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory: “In short, there is no objective or quantitative character to the fires that were used in creating the Index.” https://www.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/journals/pnw_2018_potter001.pdf
But meanwhile, dry conditions and high wind speeds continue to be the primary risk factors for wildfires. Drought and wind. None of which have anything to do with CO2.
There are many techniques for quantifying wildfire risk. There are criticisms for all of them as there are for quantifying any property in any discipline of science. That does not mean the various techniques available to forecasters are useless. My point is simply that wildfire risk has a dependency on temperature that is separate from the topic of combustion. I do agree that wind is an essential factor as well and a very important one. This is why the SPC here in the US generally only issues extreme risk outlooks on windy days.
Skeptikal:
According to this fact check the fires can’t be blamed on stopping controlled burn-offs. I am agnostic about this issue but would like to know if there are any reliable sources that state the opposite of the article:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfires/11817336
Before blaming AGW I ask you consider all the factors.
Australia is a mostly desert like climate that regularly experiences drought. It is something you have to adapt to if you want to live here in the regions.
Just about every fire this season was started by idiots/arsonists.
We had very unlucky winds that fueled these fires in December, so much so they travelled 40km in 4 hours.
Complacent land owners, apprehensive fire service and green tape has allowed way too much fuel to build up.
No thirst quenching rain as per usual to put these fires out, the only thing that can stop them at this point.
A lack of resources for our fire service to -perhaps- have nipped these fires in the bud before they got out of control (no water bombers).
Have a good day.
“Australia is a mostly desert like climate that regularly experiences drought.”
True but recently it has been so hot and dry that rainforest has burnt. Nothing regular about that.
“Just about every fire this season was started by idiots/arsonists.”
Fires are “started” by the same things every year. This season is no different. Once started, air temperature is one of the key ingredients for how severe they are. Global heating is obviously going to increase their severity.
There was a massive drought at the end of the 19th century
https://www.nma.gov.au/defining-moments/resources/federation-drought https://knowledge.aidr.org.au/resources/environment-federation-drought/
This new “ice age” is coming along rather nicely, would’t you say.
Yes, it is. https://sunshinehours.net/2019/12/31/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-364-2019/global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2019_day_364_1981-2010/
Ice is growing like it should when the temperature is well below zero. Same for Greenland.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-90.00,90.00,926/loc=-90,90
Wow! Global sea ice had crawled back inside the 3 record-lowest years of the past 42. That truly is impressive! I’d better pull out the ski gear.
Yes, it has. My question to you is did you or would you have expected that in 2019 when it was a warm year? I did.
Understand that global sea ice extent is still 2-sigma below the 1981-2010 mean. It has been like that continuously for over 4 years now. 2-sigma excursions are expected periodically but only for short periods of time. For it to persist this long is very unusual and not expected at all. In fact sea ice declines have been so aggressive in the last decade that it has come as quite a shock to many scientists especially for the SH region. With global sea ice extents so low right now expect a few years in the 2020’s to fall back within the 2-sigma envelop and further from the recent record lows at least temporarily. Over longer time periods the decline will continue and new records will be achieved again, but for now expect a reversion back to and likely above the secular trendline.
You seem to believe that a warm year on average means warmth at all locations and at all times during that year. It is called natural variation. A quick look at the data (for the Arctic) since 1978 shows that there were many cold years where the ice grew slowly and many warm years where it grew quickly. What you are seeing is nothing exceptional. Get back to me when you see a PERSISTENT (multi-year) pattern than is discernible from natural annual fluctuations. But make sure you also speak up if that pattern goes in the opposite direction.
The current average temperature of the northern hemisphere.
https://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/SSW/gif_files/lat_pres_gfs_TMP_NH_f000.png
Your explanation of natural variation is a hand wave. It is warm for a reason, just as the ice is growing for a reason.
Per your requirement, we already have had three years of persistent ice growth since 2016. That is sufficient to call this an entry into a mini ice age, but I expect this last until SC25 TSI ramps up with sunspot activity, so the current increase in ice will be short-lived.
It will drag on if the next solar cycle is really weak…
It is warm for a reason. The tropics were warm, sending warm inflow to the poles, but in spite of that, ice is still growing. How can that be?
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/ssta_c.gif
https://i.postimg.cc/zBmD5Q78/Nino34-vs-Sea-Ice-Extent.jpg
The ice is growing for a reason, from long-duration low TSI. This year is like last year. In 2014, the Great Lakes froze under lower TSI than this year’s solar minimum level, only to rapidly melt when TSI soared back to high warming levels.
https://i.postimg.cc/hjkKvS21/Lo-TSI-Hard-Winters.jpg
Since July last summer the Central Pacific Outgoing Longwave Radiation has been positive, meaning fewer clouds, a condition brought about by weak-penetrating low TSI, allowing Nino34 to float high from the higher insolation.
The TSI solar influence is layered and time-dependent.
And in spite of all the hype, we aren’t in a GSM now and cosmic rays didn’t cool the ocean or troposphere in 2019.
Bob,
Sea ice extent is modulated by numerous factors. It’s also a metric of sea ice that can change even without a corresponding change in area or volume. That’s because extent is a measure of the breadth or expanse of the leading edge of the ice. The ice can compact or disperse thus changing the extent by nothing more than winds alone which is often the case. Trying to draw conclusions about the amount of sea ice or the decadal trends by tracking year-to-year variations has numerous methodological problems.
Bob,
Solar cycles have been shown to influence sea ice. But the effect may not be what you think it is. First, understand that the solar cycle signal on sea ice metrics is very weak. However, it can be elicited out from the noise caused by other factors using statistical techniques. One such attempt was by Roy 2018. He shows that solar min/max puts a negative/positive tendency on sea ice mass thus causing it to decrease/increase more than it would have otherwise. This is mainly due to the changes in weather patterns that are induced.
Anyway, no, don’t expect SC25 to have a large influence on sea ice extents. It will still fluctuate up and down from year-to-year regardless with a slight downward pressure caused by global warming.
bdgwx
You’re not appreciating the nuance I spoke of.
The long-term is also set by the same factors.
The general principles involved don’t change.
It’s the solar cycles that are all different.
Creating differing layers and time dependencies.
Picking them out is like playing pick-up sticks.
The short-term is the key to the long-term.
The arctic also gets tropical Atlantic inflow.
Bob,
And one last thing. 3 years is no where near enough time to infer that an ice age has started especially considering that the planet still has a +0.6 W/m^2 imbalance. Also be aware that there are numerous 3yr+ periods in which sea ice extent, area, volume, and global cryosphere metrics as a whole have increased yet the secular trend is decisively down in all metrics. I’ll be honest and blunt. Your calling of the next ice age defies credulity. You can’t possibly expect us to buy into it right?
Here’s your problem: you are avoiding the truth that ice is on the increase. It doesn’t matter for how long or deep it is, it increases. Your strawman high expectations for such growth are out-of-bounds. If you didn’t notice I put a very tight window around it and defined the conditions for its impending end.
Perhaps you are willing to explain in detail your different idea of how in a warming world there can be a polar ice increase without invoking ‘natural variability’ as though it’s a force.
I’ll be honest and blunt. You’re avoiding reality. Ice is on the increase right now so be ignorant and deny it.
Mini ice ages come and go like El Ninos, only on slightly longer time scales, very solar activity-dependent. If that definition doesn’t work for you maybe we can call it a micro-ice age. What difference does it make, ice is increasing! A big El Nino can change it all back.
A mini ice age is not a full-blown ice age where the ice caps grow for centuries as world temperature crater. Know and appreciate the difference.
These conclusions are for the short-term, but the principles apply to the long-term, but you haven’t figured that out, such as how it applies to the past or future.
bdgwx
I think you trolled me over something I didn’t say.
I didn’t say we are starting an “ice age” as you put it, with all that gose along with it as you insinuated.
Don’t. put. words. in. my. mouth. – got it?
“Heres your problem: you are avoiding the truth that ice is on the increase.”
Bob, Im not clear what metric you are using to make that call.
The ice is growing right now in the normal seasonal fashion that is expected for this time of year.
Beyond that, it had record lows several times this year (particularly last Spring and early summer)
Bob,
You said 3 years of ice growth is enough to call this an entry into a mini ice-age. Mini or otherwise an entry into an ice-age of any kind cannot be inferred from just 3 years. And neither is going to happen anytime soon.
Bob,
Furthermore, we haven’t even had 3 years of ice growth per the metric we were discussing which was global sea ice extent. The global annual mean from 2014-16 was 22.64e6 km^2. And from 2017-2019 it was 21.17e6. That is a decline of 6.5% from the previous 3 years. And 2019 just achieved a new record low of 21.02e6.
I think you guys are freaked out over the use of the three words strung together, ‘mini ice age’. You’re not afraid I hope. It’s not a big deal.
Solar activity hasn’t been low enough long enough for us to get very far into it, nor does it seem likely that it will. It doesn’t matter that it’s warm everywhere else either – that’s not the point.
The point is these enduring low TSI current conditions are necessary for ice growth, lasting until TSI/insolation rises sufficiently. It won’t all last through the 2020 summer, but I expect it will continue again next NH winter too.
Perhaps you thought I meant ice growth for a 30 year climate period. I didn’t say that, nor do we have to wait 30 years to know the YE 2019 ice has grown higher than the last 3 years, or to know why.
You warmists are very guilty of labelling every El Nino as a sign of man-made climate change, blah, blah. Now you can’t stand it that I’ve named a low-solar ice growth period.
What do I read here? Interesting!
“Per your requirement, we already have had three years of persistent ice growth since 2016.”
Interesting, but… wrong.
1. According to SIDADS’ data, the Arctic sea ice extent is on slight decline since 2016. What has increased a little bit is Arctic’s sea ice area (aka 100 % pack ice):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XXVZjTi43bbg6d9lWUy4vG1htkOnIQaz/view
Linear Arctic anomaly estimates wrt mean of 1981-2010, for 2016-2019, in Mkm^2
area: 0.29 +- 0.61 (stat. insignif.)
extent: 0.35 +- 0.57 (stat. insignif.)
The linear estimates are both negative when considering absolute values (of course statistically insignificant).
2. And… again according to SIDADS’ data, in the Antarctic sea ice extent and area are both on slight decline since 2016:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18U2rV8_8V_y-hUEXhfA7GfImbV60z40V/view
Linear Antarctic anomaly estimates wrt mean of 1981-2010, for 2016-2019, in Mkm^2
area: -0.33 +- 0.54 (stat. insignif.)
extent: -1.07 +- 0.61 (stat. signif.)
Sources:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/monthly/data/
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/monthly/data/
Bob,
Why do you use only days 350+ from your graph to conclude that “ice is on the increase”? Why not use days 310-320 to point out that ice cover then had grown since 2017 & 2018? Why not show the rest of the graph. You pick a couple of weeks at the end of the year and believe that this somehow shows a pattern. But when you are desperate to find a pattern, you will find it.
My point: YE 2019 was higher than the previous 3 YEs. Do you also deny the reality that ice is now higher?
I said nothing else so anything you say to twist my meaning would be pure gaslighting, which you excel at, btw.
https://sunshinehours.net/2019/12/31/sea-ice-extent-global-antarctic-and-arctic-day-364-2019/global_sea_ice_extent_zoomed_2019_day_364_1981-2010/
Data:
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/south/daily/data
ftp://sidads.colorado.edu/DATASETS/NOAA/G02135/north/daily/data
I’m more convinced every day people don’t get English.
You’ve each tried to make look stupid.
Here’s the deal. Since not a single one of you can prove to me that the YE 2019 ice was lower than any of the previous three years, all you each have left is some twisted version of what you think I said or should’ve said, isn’t that right?
That makes each of you a troll in my eyes. Bindi too.
I made the “mini ice age” call 13 months ago. So far so good within my parameters, not yours. Where’s your predictions?
Part of my prediction for last year came true with the record low solar activity and early hard winter in many parts of the NH.
Let me guess, the first thing somebody wants to do now is come back at me and tell me how it’s been warm somewhere, so therefore I must be wrong. That’s a strawman argument. Don’t come back to me with your strawmen. This is how the trolling game is played by you, and you know who you are, troll.
The desperate people are you, who don’t know TSI. You’re lost.
Weber
Here is how SIDADS’s daily data for the Arctic looks like:
1. Absolute daily values
https://tinyurl.com/qs7k6ov
2. Daily anomalies wrt 1981-2010:
https://tinyurl.com/wj7my6n
And from that little piece of November + December 2019, you deduce we are moving to some ice age?
Don’t you see how 2019 anomalies look for March till September, compared with 2016/17/18?
I hope that the incoming winter will be in the Arctic strong enough to help in rebuilding a bit of all this ice we have lost since years.
But I’m not sure it will.
The 2020s are going to be an exercise to see which denier can make the most absolutely laughable statement possible.
I nominate this to get us started:
Bob Weber says:
“Per your requirement, we already have had three years of persistent ice growth since 2016. That is sufficient to call this an entry into a mini ice age….”
“The short-term is the key to the long-term.”
Nonsense. The short-term ups and the downs for sea ice and global temperature are completely non-predictive of the long-term behaviour.
It is cherry picking season here in OZ.
Bob appears to have gorged himself silly on cherries. I haven’t seen a performance like this since the Great Pause (R.I.P.).
For those who aren’t into cherries this is what the Arctic Sea Ice Data looks like since the beginning of the satellite data.
https://i.postimg.cc/dtjCrZvY/Arctic-Sea-Ice-Annual-Data.jpg
Bob,
I don’t want anyone to ever think I’m trying to make them look stupid nor do I want you to think I’m picking on you. If that’s the message you got then I apologize.
We’re not saying that YE 2019 was lower than YE of any of the previous 3 years. We can’t make that claim because it wouldn’t be true. But, we don’t look at individual single day data points like this to draw conclusions because it is a form of cherry-picking. Instead we use statistical measures like the mean or linear regression trend which incorporates all available data points.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENP_qthXUAAumSo?
page not found.
describe a link’s contents before posting it.
Increase in average UAH by decade:
1980s to 1990s: +0.144
1990s to 2000s: +0.103
2000s to 2010s: +0.154
Number of months of +0.3 and above, not counting super El Ninos and their immediate aftermath:
1980s: 1
1990s: 0
2000s: 7
2010s: 35
Number of months under +0.1
1980s: 113
1990s: 92
2000s: 52
2010s: 22 (1 in last 5 years)
Trend at the South Pole… +0.01
Now research the reason why, instead of being willfully ignorant.
Just pointing out an inconvenient truth.
And the trend at the tropopause, where models predict maximum warming?
Cloud cover changes drive global temps. CO2 is only a bit player.
Positive feedback doesn’t exist without an energy source, otherwise you violate the 2nd law.
So both of you are claiming that the globe on average has not warmed because you can find a couple of anomalies. Interesting.
South Pole trend = +0.10 C/decade since 1957
https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/Amundsen_Scott.All.temperature.txt
South Pole trend over last 30 years
= +0.61 C/dec
Amundsen-Scott Station
data:
https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/Amundsen_Scott.All.temperature.txt
Does your South Pole trend have any units, perhaps?
And is this a linear trend?
For Antarctic sea ice?
A linear fit there is meaningless.
skeptical:
No, the trend at the south pole is 10 times larger than you’re claim:
+0.10 C/dec
https://legacy.bas.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/Amundsen_Scott.All.temperature.txt
Use those El Ninos for all your worth.
It shows the warming is NOT from atmospheric CO2. 😉
2019 was weak El Nino year.
The ENSO season runs from JJA to MJJ.
2018-18 was barely above the threshold – an average ONI of 0.6 C.
2015-2016 was 1.7 C
1997-98 was 1.6 C
I don’t see how you can blame 2019’s high temperature on ENSO state alone.
Want to share?
I am saying that the 2019 temperatures CANNOT be blamed on El Nino.
Apparently you are claiming we have had a continuous increase in El Nino frequency over those decades. Is that correct?
Try this website:
https://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=4
Then look at the winter and spring graphs.
The winter trend there for the Northern Hemisphere is (DJF) is +49 Kkm2/yr since 1966.
The spring trend (MAM) is -163 Kkm2/yr
It has now been 8 years since the arctic ice minimum of 2012. Global averages continue to slowly rise. I’ve traced the 1998 step up root cause back to 3 planetary formations during a short time:
Gleissberg alignment, Jupiter hitting it’s perihelion, and Jupiter aligns with Saturn
You can read about it in a post I made here:
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2882757758410095/?d=n
All this happened within a 4 year period. In this chart, you can see how the arctic ice is following the solar cycles and the AMO. (which is caused by Yoshimura and Gleissberg cycles also from the sun and major planets)
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2887125587973312/?d=n
Cooling is not as easy to model as warming as there are no energy inputs. Unfortunately, high quality sea ice data going back to 1940 is hard to come by. hmm I wonder why? Judging by the length of the last 2 +AMO cycles (which the earth is in for the majority of the time) the cooling isn’t late at all. In fact, if it showed up tomorrow it would be very early.
Scott R
“The most important month to study the arctic ice is August as that is the low point of the season. Since 2012, the arctic ice has not made a new minimum.”
1. Wrong: the really low point is September.
2. Wrong: the most important month is March, because it is the month where you see how much ice has been reconstructed during the last winter.
Commenter and guest poster Javier has often pretended that Arctic sea ice extent is gaining back because the September trend is slightly increasing.
On the one hand he is right: the September estimate is
-0.01 +- 0.65 Mkm^2 / decade (terribly significant indeed).
But on the other hand, what Javier seems to ignore is the March trend:
-1.12 +- 0.47 Mkm^2 / decade (really significant).
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1D-u7oyY_rzu9AgiCTrAMHHSZDO7nyHVi/view
Thus no, sorry: Arctic sea ice is not increasing.
By the way, what he never considers, like many commenters: sea ice does NOT consist of its extent part only: you have to take the pack ice (the so-called area) as well.
Bindidon,
I defined August as the most important month since the arctic ice index is the lowest in that month. Lower than September. Why wouldn’t extent matter? You seem to forget that the claimed tipping point by alarmists require more open ocean to absorb sunlight and that doesn’t seem to be happening for 8 years running. In fact, we have NH snow cover at the 1st standard deviation above average during the 3rd warmest year on record. So no tipping point here.
Scott R says:
“I defined August as the most important month since the arctic ice index is the lowest in that month. Lower than September.”
Index? What’s that? For both Arctic sea ice extent and volume Sept is less than August.
Are you unable to actually look at the data, for some reason?
Or are you just a shameless liar?
AGW is now so obvious that the denial of people like Scott R relies on outright fabrications — that is, lies.
But you're still wrong. ASI extent is lowest in September.
"The summer melt season usually begins in March and ends sometime during September. The sea ice minimum has been occurring later in recent years because of a longer melting season."
https://tinyurl.com/yd47fjlg
And if you need a visual to see it, here it is:
https://tinyurl.com/zaasnoz
September is <b>clearly</b> the month of lowest Arctic sea ice extent.
Scott R doesn’t answer questions like this.
He can’t admit when he is wrong — the worst trait of all deniers.
Scott R says:
“It has now been 8 years since the arctic ice minimum of 2012. Global averages continue to slowly rise.”
Wrong.
JAXA v2 data, daily average:
2012 – 9.97 Mkm2
2016 – 9.73 Mkm2
2019 – 9.76 Mkm2
There is no meaningful increase in Arctic sea ice.
ChDaApK,
My understanding is a 2019.75 means September. 2019.67 means August. Over the last 20 years, August has trended from 7.5 down to 3.5, and is now above 4 again. September trended from 9.5 to around 6. These are monthly readings. I didn’t use a daily data set. It is possible the very beginning of September is lower ice than the last day of August and you can’t tell because this is monthly data, but a quick recovery raises the monthly average for September.
The link keeps preventing the post… I’ll try again…
Screw it… I’m using wood for trees. Cant get the link to post for some reason.
Here’s the thing, going into the 2020s, the climate system is running out of ways to significantly warm. To the extent that CO2 impacts global temps, it is a logarithmic effect, and it takes a doubling of CO2 to get the same effect it has today, whatever that is, as CO2 is already saturated. It would take a couple hundred years to double CO2. So going into the 2020s, there is one variable that is working in favor of warmth. What happens with the AMO and the PDO flip negative, as will probably occur in the 2020s? What happens if solar activity continues to slide as is predicted? CO2 may be able to exacerbate warming while solar activity is high…but CO2 doesn’t have some long-term heat storage mechanism like the ocean does. What capacity does CO2 have to prevent cooling? Maybe it makes the ceiling higher, but does it make the floor lower? I have a hard time buying that.
“To the extent that CO2 impacts global temps, it is a logarithmic effect, and it takes a doubling of CO2 to get the same effect it has today, whatever that is, as CO2 is already saturated.”
The effect is logarithmic but CO2 levels are a long way from saturated. The current 410 ppm of CO2 is roughly 1.5 times preindustrial levels. The added forcing is around 2 W/m^2. Reaching 560 ppm (2 X preindustrial) will add another ~1.75 W/m^2 warming from CO2.
https://static.skepticalscience.com/pics/logarithmic-co2-140-to-1120-x.png
We don’t know the precise TSI effect of CO2. We have guesses based on models and those models have holes in them, as indicated by Svensmark in his Force Majeure paper. The effect of clouds on climate is not modeled correctly. We do not know how cloud formation will modulate as solar activity declines. We do not know what global cloud fraction will be over the next century. Clouds have more than enough power on their own to cancel out any effect of CO2 by completely radiating heat energy back into space.
https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2019/03/SvensmarkSolar2019-1.pdf
Unless I missed one it appears like this is the warmest December in the UAH period of record. Or using what might be the blogs more preferred phrasing it is the 42nd least chilly out of 42.
Yup. As each month passes and more data emerges from Dr. Roy, it looks more and more like the denying denizens who populate his blog are on a fool’s errand.
It is warming naturally, as always.
What natural factor has caused the +0.6 W/m^2 (or more) energy imbalance on the planet? And what happened to the increased back radiation caused by the net effect of anthroprogenic GHG and aerosol emissions go if not into this imbalance?
bdgwx says, January 3, 2020 at 1:32 PM:
You already know the answer to this question, bdgwx. Because you’ve been told (and shown in the data) multiple times in the past.
It’s all very simple:
Today’s positive ToA imbalance is there because of the marked reduction in global albedo (from a drop in relevant/reflective cloud cover, a result of regime changes in Earth’s global circulation patterns) that occurred during the last half of the 1980s, which caused the ASR (the solar heat (net SW, TSI minus albedo (refl SW)) to the Earth) to increase significantly over just a few years. This in turn of course led to global warming, but Earth’s temperatures have yet to rise enough to close the radiation gap (ASR minus OLR) even today, due to the fact that a large portion of the positive imbalance ends up rather being stored down in the ocean.
So what caused global circulation patterns to change? And can this model make predictions regarding the global mean temperature that are testable against the paleoclimate record, instrumental record, and into the future? And how does the model handle the radiative forcing of GHGs and aerosols? What is this model’s skill relative to the consensus model?
bdgwx says, January 4, 2020 at 4:05 PM:
*Sigh*
Yes, that would be your response, wouldn’t it? What do you think? Santa Claus? Aliens? God? CO2?
bdgwx,
Do you seriously believe that the Earth’s global climate (the coupled sun-ocean-troposphere system) would remain in eternal static equilibrium, no decadal/multidecadal changes, no variability whatsoever, until the day when humanity comes along and decides to put some more CO2 into the atmosphere?
I mean, how gullible can a person get!?
Things change (correct their course) naturally over time. We do not control Nature. Live with it and go find a real problem to worry about.
“It’s all very simple”.
Phew! Dodged all that quantitative modeling.
Hand waving is back in style for the 20s.
I acknowledge that the climate changes all of the time. I have no choice because that is what the abundance of evidence says. What I don’t believe in is hand waving. I believe that the climate changes for a variety of reasons. Trying to understand and explain these reasons so that we can make predictions is not unreasonable.
‘Do you seriously believe that the Earth’s global climate (the coupled sun-ocean-troposphere system) would remain in eternal static equilibrium, no decadal/multidecadal changes, no variability whatsoever, until the day when humanity comes along and decides to put some more CO2 into the atmosphere?’
Wow K is becoming a real strawman specialist!
‘no variability whatsoever’ Who has said anything remotely like that?
Why are skeptics so fond of these False Dichotomies??
Warming naturally? From what?
Bob,
Your comment to me:
“Your explanation of natural variation is a hand wave.”
The fickleness of a denier.
OK Doomer.
It’s also the warmest meteorological autumn (Sept-Nov) in UAH’s records.
I appreciate UAH data because I dont worry about UN influence or political bias towards warming. So during global warming it is a reliable source.
There are a lot of reliable data sources available that are devoid of political influence so why pick just one? And how do you know UAH is “reliable” anyway? What do you compare it to for quantifying its “reliability”?
Aaron, UAH has made some of the biggest errors and biggest adjustments of anyone.
Learn the history.
Given that different groups’ analyses of the same sattelite data produce such starkly different results, on the warming of the LT, really should not leave anyone comfortable about this data.
Other researchers who may want to model or use LT trends will have no choice but to regard these trends as unreliable.
With each passing month Dr. Roy’s data adds confirmation to the reality of climate change.
Do you have any tips you currently follow on minimalism?
Dr. Roy’s data is not need to confirm the reality that climate has always changed. Don’t know that the data has yet helped us understand why the climate is currently changing the way it is; or for that matter how it will change in the immediate future. A lot of comments on this blog contain a large portion of confirmation bias.
The UAH data definitely helps in understanding what is causing the warming. For example, the observation of a cooling stratosphere simultaneous with a warming troposphere eliminates several candidate causes.
PmhinSC says:
“Dr. Roys data is not need to confirm the reality that climate has always changed.”
Roy’s data starts in late 1978.
How does that teach you anything about the climate on the 4 Billion year-old Earth?
And the fraud gets deeper…
So the TSI reconstruction since the last GSM has been officially updated on the SORCE website, and declared “the most up to date” estimate of solar activity for the last 400 years. It appears the past has been warmed to make it look like the sun hasn’t changed much since the late 1700s. What a surprise! I compared Coddington Et Al to this latest dataset here:
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2885390711480133/?d=n
We can see thru the fraud as solar cycle 24 according to the new data was still the 5th highest minimum, matching Coddington very well, but it made SC 24 max only the 14th strongest since the last GSM, rather than the 6th because the past was warmed so much.
Anyone care to explain why I should ever believe adjustments that favor the AGW argument? I have no doubt the adjustments were made to factor in the “physics” of co2.It’s the old dog bites you once circular argument.
If your first reaction is accusations of fraud I doubt there is anything we can say to convince you of anything.
BTW..I assume this puts an end to your analysis of the relationship between TSI and global mean temperatures? Afterall, if you’re going to indict one of your dependent datasets of fraud then that certainly casts any work you’ve done previously in this regard into question as well…right?
Climate science has failed in its duty of care.
They have not attempted falsification. They violently reject external criticism.
Blind Freddy can see that observed cloud forcing is a magnitude larger than CO2 forcing.
Yet the most obvious of natural drivers hasn’t even been considered.
What words would you describe their negligence as?
Rob JM
“Blind Freddy can see that observed cloud forcing is a magnitude larger than CO2 forcing.”
Maybe Freddy will manage to present us data or valuable papers about this?
Rob JM says:
“Blind Freddy can see that observed cloud forcing is a magnitude larger than CO2 forcing.”
Let’s see the peer reviewed journal studies.
Scott R
“So the TSI reconstruction since the last GSM has been officially updated on the SORCE website…”
Sounds as usual, Scott R. You accuse others of fraud without having any idea of what they did.
What about asking Bob Weber? He knows a lot more than you concerning TSI, SORCE etc etc.
bdgwx and Bindidon,
I have no intension of dropping my comparisons, models between TSI and temperatures.
What would be your reaction as AGW alarmists had it gone the other way and all the adjustments made the TSI and sun look MUCH more active now, and less active long ago? If this was the first time such an adjustment was made on a dataset, perhaps I would not have had the same level of distrust. I can not tell if adjustments are being made to fit the co2 model or if they are legit!
There seems to be a divergence in the new data set. The minimums are still in the top group, but the maximums are now middle of the pack. You don’t see anything fishy there with this last cycle?
I do have to say that the timing of the new data looks better than the old. It better matches major planetary alignments between Jupiter and Saturn near Jupiters perihelion at the end of the last GSM, and the Dalton cycles are spaced better now. So there is something to be positive about here. But yep, they eliminated the step up and made it look like there is no modern maximum. That is ridiculous. I guess every scientist that worked on this before prior to 2020 didn’t know what they were doing.
One scientist might say the CO2 adjustments are perfectly ok and needed. To another it is fraud. I will try to stay as open minded as possible as I see where the new TSI data takes me. That said, I am glad I have the old data in a safe place.
What “CO2 adjustments?”
Another lie from another denier here.
Scott R
“But yep, they eliminated the step up and made it look like there is no modern maximum.”
Instead of discrediting and denigrating activities you do not know anything about, try to learn, e.g. about the very origin of the problem:
http://www.leif.org/research/Revisiting-the-Sunspot-Number.pdf
You, Scott R, are as ridiculous as ignorant.
Scott R
Some more info for you to learn.
This is from a comment by Leif Svalgaard at WUWT in 2014, as Anthony Watts presented Clette & Svalgaards SSN revision work in a head post:
The raw data seems to be in reasonably good shape up to about 1925, but a lot of it has disappeared for newer data.
Wolf and Wolfer published all the raw data observers sent them, but Brunner [from 1926] only published the raw data from Zurich, while Waldmeier [from 1945] stopped publishing raw data altogether, with a note in the record, that the raw data is available in the archives of the Zurich Observatories. Mysteriously all the archives are lost.
We have tried to [with some, but not complete] success to recover some of the raw data, but the job isnt finished yet. However, we have some confidence that we have identified two major problem in the historical record, one around 1882 and one around 1947.
There are other [smaller] glitches which can also be fixed, so we are making solid progress.
The main obstacle is the determined effort in some quarters to resist any update of the precious historical record. This is, of course, counterproductive: Errors that have been identified must be corrected.
You can also read this, maybe it helps you coming down from your paranoid claims:
http://www.leif.org/research/The%20long-term%20variation%20of%20solar%20activity.pdf
I welcome any change that addresses known problems or improves accuracy.
Scott, how do you feel about UAH’s adjustments, which for v6 were about 3 times the adjustments of the last NOAA adjustments?
I bet you didn’t know that.
Here is the publication describing the new TSI reconstruction.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1601/1601.05397.pdf
It is annotated as “unofficial” right now. If I’m understanding things correctly the revised sunspot record (SILSOv2) is the dominant cause the change in the NRLTSI2 model outputs.
The TSI comparison old/new in the paper is much less different than Scott’s on his facebook page. And the authors say it makes little difference to calcs of TSI influence.
I wonder why Scott didn’t just paste the priginal graph? He mentions Coddington et al in his post above, but not on his facebook page, giving the impression that he is comparing an old/updated data set instead of 2 different ones.
barry I posted the delta between the Coddington and this latest unofficial difference. The one graph has Coddington overlay with the new data.
The study describing the changes was kindly linked by bdgwx above.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1601/1601.05397.pdf
The authors say:
“We find that the SILSO record has little effect on either model after 1885 but leads to greater amplitude solar-cycle fluctuations in TSI reconstructions prior, suggesting many 18th and 19th century cycles could be similar in amplitude to those of the current Modern Maximum. TSI records based on the revised sunspot data do not suggest a significant change in Maunder Minimum TSI values, and comparing that era to the present we find only very small potential differences in estimated solar contributions to climate with this new sunspot record.”
They conclude that the revised solar index reduces the solar influece on warming over the last four centuries by……. (drum roll) …. 0.02C.
That’s a change of solar contribution to global warming of 0.005 C per century.
How does this quantification of the “fraud” strike you, Scott?
Warmistas on a high horse again, its all El Ni·ño all the time now
In the following days, the temperature on Baffin Island will drop below -50 degrees C.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#2020/01/05/2100Z/wind/surface/level/overlay=temp/orthographic=-83.06,69.74,896/loc=-71.177,69.037
2019 was a weak El Nino year.
And as usual, Eben, ignorant Coolistas reduce ENSO to the El Ninos, and completely ignore all the La Ninas…
It’s not El Nino all the time now, but it’s convenient for deniers to claim so.
They will use any excuse to avoid confronting the truth. Eben is a good example.
On January 8, there will be a strong attack of Arctic air in the northeast of the US.
My last two comments didn’t post. Will this?
Nope , still don’t see anything
Please do not forget that the blog’s watchdog automatically eliminates, for historical reasons, all comments containing concatenated ‘d c’ letter sequences, as well as those containing absorp-tion, and a few other guys.
Thus, Had-crut or ncd-c for example make your comments plunge into the Nirvana.
Moreover, it is best to restrict your characters to the simple ASCII set. Sometimes, the blogs accepts UTF-8, but…
Also, it excludes a lot of names Roy would rather not deal with.
You mean like “P..body” ?
ChDaAppK says:
“Also, it excludes a lot of names Roy would rather not deal with.”
You did make a preposterous accusation back then.
The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade (+0.11 C/decade over the global-averaged oceans, and +0.18 C/decade over global-averaged land).
Joe R
“The linear warming trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade…”
You are absolutely right! But as UAH6.0 LT came out in 2015, replacing the outdated 5.6, its Globe trend was… 0.11 C / decade.
And recently, it passed from 0.129 up to… 0.132 inbetween, he he.
The acceleration of warming for UAH LT v6 is now 0.02 C/dec^2.
That is, every decade, the decadal warming trend increases by 0.02 C/decade.
There is nowhere near enough data to calculate a meaningful acceleration.
trend since January, 1979 remains at +0.13 C/decade
In Jan 2016 the trend was only +0.11 C/dec.
On an unrelated topic, congratulations to everyone here on the yet another Perihelion Day, when the earth passes the perihelion of its orbit some time between 3rd and 5th of january (apparently, it is slightly different date every year).
Not for ever, thanks to apsidal precession.
I was mostly talking about this year and a few following it.
I know, I just felt like contributing that.
It’s more than a few though. It takes about 55 years to change by a day.
I wonder where Salvatore has got to.
Salvatore del Prete
July 3, 2018 at 8:30 AM
“Barry you must understand if the global temperatures rise from this point in time on I will say I am wrong.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2018/07/uah-global-temperature-update-for-june-2018-0-21-deg-c/#comment-310367
Wish he was here.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2018.68
[Oops – I accidentally posted this in the thread you had linked to]
Waiting for the deniers to complain that you can’t just pick the start of your graph at the low point, after doing exactly the same in reverse to “prove” that the climate had cooled from 2016 to 2018.
(Of course, unlike them your graph is not an attempt to make a statement about climate change, but is merely proving this person’s claim to be nonsense.)
Salvatore finally found some shame. He is no doubt repenting right now.
Zero evidence for the oft repeated claim that environmentalism has prevented hazard reduction burns. Ridiculously easy to demonstrate it is false.
So much for being ‘skeptical’.
The CMIP5 models average/estimate is .28 C / decade. Do you think that is the number we should use?
Ha ha. Prove it.
Hazard reduction burns are not a zero risk activity. A sudden wind can transform a slow creeping fire into a fast moving fire that is much more difficult to control (personal experience). However, doing no hazard reduction burns causes the fuel load to increase year by year until one day it will go off like a bomb destroying everything in its path. Aboriginals conducted cool winter burns long before the arrival of white men who stopped this practice. Massive fires occurred a few years afterwards, and recur every few years.
So you’re saying the severity of the AUS fires is anthropogenic?
It seems Aboriginals didn’t do much “back burning” in terms the entirety of Australia.
And it seems likely {to me} they back burned as way to hunt for food- and also noted that long term benefit of “back burning” was also “good for the environment”.
It also possible the Aboriginals would sometimes lose control of fires, and burn “the whole place down”.
@ Barry
Its not the greenies preventing it, its nature and the advice of the fire authorities. Lord how some people love a lie that stokes their agenda.
Greenies are always preventing back burning. East Gippsland is a favourite haunt for these moronic extremists.
The ABC last week decided that a purge of its self documented record of greenies preventing back burning would be best sitting in the memory hole where it wouldnt stoke an agenda. Of course the ABC thought that no one would expect them to do exactly what Leftist ideologues do and would therefore not pre-empt this lie by omission to take place while East Gippsland was burning. Wrong. Click the link below to the archived weblink of the ABCs own report on greenies preventing back burning in September 2019.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GmB8nEi-9mkJ:https://www.facebook.com/ABCGippsland/posts/planned-burn-protestresidents-have-disrupted-a-planned-burn-at-nowa-nowa-in-east/10156946924269825/+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
@ Barry
Its not the greenies preventing it, its nature and the advice of the fire authorities. Lord how some people love a lie that stokes their agenda.
Greenies are always preventing back burning. East Gippsland is a favourite haunt for these moronic extremists.
The ABC last week decided that a purge of its self documented record of greenies preventing back burning would be best sitting in the memory hole where it wouldnt stoke an agenda. Of course the ABC thought that no one would expect them to do exactly what Leftist ideologues do and would therefore not pre-empt this lie by omission to take place while East Gippsland was burning. Wrong. Click the link below to the archived weblink of the ABCs own report on greenies preventing back burning in September 2019.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:GmB8nEi-9mkJ:https://www.facebook.com/ABCGippsland/posts/planned-burn-protestresidents-have-disrupted-a-planned-burn-at-nowa-nowa-in-east/10156946924269825/+&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au
Is that it? A supposedly deleted ABC facebook post about local residents protesting a back burn, with one of them quoted on climate change? This is the army of greenies responsible for stopping back burning in Australia?
Gee, where are all the extant reports? This is from a few days ago, but Barnaby Joyce and his echo-chamber have been making this claim for weeks (and every year there are bush fires).
This is the totality of evidence of the green army stopping back burning? That’s pathetic.
For the band of deniers who claim that warming is only due to El Ninos:
Number of El Nino months:
1980s/90s: 67
2000s/10s: 59
Number of La Nina months:
1980s/90s: 55
2000s/10s: 68
So, no, the climate has warmed DESPITE a general tendency towards La Nina conditions.
According to work done in 2013 by a group of science people led by Santer and Bonfils, published in 2014, the removal of all ENSO and volcano signals out of the temperature series RSS3.3 LT gave a residual trend of 0.086 C / decade (to be compared with the original value of 0.124 C / decade in 2012/13).
https://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/89054/solomon%206%20Santer_etal_NatGeo_Article_File_22jan2014.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
I forgot to add that RSS3.3 (stopped Dec 2018) was nearly identical to UAH6.0, what means that Santer & al. would have found the same numbers if they had taken 6.0 as example.
On which page do I find those figures?
Why don’t you search? Have a look at page 52…
Why get snarky? I was asking a legitimate question. I DID do a search, and it gave me nothing. Clearly because those numbers are part of an image (a graph) and not part of the text.
Other work using data up to Dec 2010 (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011) found that the sum of ENSO, solar and volcanic forcings since 1979 resulted in a small negative trend for all major data sets except UAH, which had zero difference to the unadjusted trend. ENSO by itself had a small negative influence on all the major global temp series for that period.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022
This doesn’t cover the last 10 years, of course. Summing the events is a crude method of determining overall influence, as ENSO events have different intensities. The study linked used the MEI for ENSO.
The keyword you use is ONLY. I’d agree it seems like there’s a small forcing toward warmth when ENSO’s effects are removed.
Still, the trend over the last 5 years is toward El Nino, and the trend the 5 years prior to La Nina. ENSO general stability seems to coincide with the pause and the big warming over the last 5 years.
ENSO YEAR UAH Trend
-9.9 2000 -0.02
-3.6 2001 0.12
7.6 2002 0.22
3.1 2003 0.19
5.5 2004 0.08
0.4 2005 0.2
1.1 2006 0.11
-6.8 2007 0.16
-9.1 2008 -0.1
3.9 2009 0.09
-5.6 2010 0.33
-10.1 2011 0.02
-1.5 2012 0.05
-3.5 2013 0.14
1.6 2014 0.18
17.7 2015 0.28
4.3 2016 0.53
-2.1 2017 0.4
0.4 2018 0.23
5.5 2019 0.44
How many angels dance on a pin and how much faster do they dance if the antarctic temperature is 0.01C warmer than last year?
Pathetic.
let me know when you actually have evidence the recent modest warming in the atmosphere is caused by CO2 from burning fossil fuels.
Fires in Australia … happens almost every year. Climate change its not. So what if the fires are a bit worse than usual.
Well, if on the other hand you look at 60 y, where people live, we see that it is ~ 2.5 deg F in temperate land areas.
If that continues that is quite significant.
This fire season is like no other that we know of, Ken. More area burned in a single year, hottest weather conditions over the largest area, lowest or 2nd lowest December rainfall (but no trend in rainfall over the long term) and other statistics that are unprecedented. The fact that this has become a national emergency rather than just a state by state one attests to the unusual intensity of this fire season. Climate change doesn’t start fires. It changes the conditions they flare up in. Hotter temps is one factor that exacerbates them. Lower ground moisture is another. Preconditioning matters both in the short and long term. We can’t attribute one fire season to climate change, but we can attribute changing boundary conditions to climate change. The weather rolls the dice, climate stacks the odds.
The evidence of global warming from increased atmospheric CO2 is substantial, collated over decades, and has many lines of indpendent, corroborating inquiry. You could start with Tyndall’s experiments in the mid 1800s demonstrating CO2s warming properties, Arrhenius’ calculations at the end of that century, Calendar’s work mid 20th century, the empirical database of the optical properties of atmospheric (and other) gases (eg, HITRAN), then get more detail and other lines of evidence from the various IPCC reports of the last 30 years summarizing developments in the science.
If that’s too much work, perhaps the views of skeptic scientists (those who mistrust the IPCC and tend to dismiss concern about AGW) who are qualified in atmospheric physics all agreeing that the enhanced greenhouse effect is a real, physically justified phenomenon might persuade you that opinions to the opposite come from crackpot land.
expletive deleted won’t let me post.
CO2 levels are rising. Mauna Loa data shows it rising linearly.
Arrhenius showed that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
Angstrom showed that CO2 has an a b s o r p t i o n spectrum.
Hottel measured CO2 emissivity.
So we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The a b s o r p t i o n spectrum is nearly saturated. Emissivity is very low.
Meanwhile temperature has been modestly rising since 1850, the end of the mini ice age.
Temperature has not been rising in lockstep with CO2. Rises and falls are more closely aligned with solar cycles.
Why are you expecting temperatures to rise in lockstep with CO2?
Can you provide evidence to support your claim that rises and falls align more closely with solar cycles? Note that we are interested in the period beginning in the later half of the 20th century and the paleoclimate record as well.
AGW hypothesis depends on climate models. The climate models, as has been explained on this blog, are profoundly wrong.
You have no evidence that CO2 causes climate change.
A very bad fire season in a year that has apparently less moisture and slightly warmer temperatures than the normal is not proof of climate change.
We are sympathetic to the people going through the experience.
Making fairy tales about CO2 causing the fires without evidence is despicable.
this blog will not allow the word a b s o r p t i o n.
Every year there is a steady forcing making the climate change from Winter to Summer (and back). If your contention holds, every day should be slightly warmer than the next for 6 months of the year.
But there is also weather. No, a steady climate forcing does not necessitate a monotonic response in surface temperature, whether from orbital variation or CO2. Summer is always warmer than Winter, even if the journey from one to the other is not a straight line.
Even if CO2 a.b.s.o.r.p.t.i.o.n was completely saturated, that layer would also be a heat source, sending IR radiation in all directions, and the CO2 molecules above continue to absorb IR. This is observed using instruments on the ground and in space.
Here is our ‘skeptic’ host, Dr Spencer, on the matter.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/04/american-thinker-publishes-a-stinker/
Most of the heat energy is transmitted by collision with other molecules. CO2 doesn’t re-radiate much IR, in part due to its low emissivity.
Irrelevant. CO2 still absorbs at higher levels of the atmos, collisonal activity continues to occur at higher levels. Even 100% saturation at a lower level doesn’t stop this.
But don’t take my word for it, go and research, and read what Dr Spencer says in the link I gave.
Here’s an explanation with a higher degree of complexity, aimed a lay people.
https://scienceofdoom.com/2010/05/12/co2-an-insignificant-trace-gas-part-eight-saturation/
Ken
“Most of the heat energy is transmitted by collision with other molecules. CO2 doesnt re-radiate much IR, in part due to its low emissivity.”
And that utter nonsense is written by the one who complains about the bad quality of peer-review.
Since when do molecules emit less than they absorb?
Maybe Ken complains about peer-review because he once wrote such nonsense in a paper which then luckily was rejected, huh?
Maybe a look e.g. here helps a bit (there are thousands of other places):
https://tinyurl.com/yfvdoocm
Ken, you are regurgitating denialist talking points that have long ago been debunked.
Saturation, nonmonotonicity, co2 is weak emitter.
I wish skeptics could be more skeptical of such memes, and find an unbiased source to evaluate them.
Bindidon (cc: barry, Nate),
“Since when do molecules emit less than they absorb?”
When they are no longer in LTE due to being heated by radiation.
This happens every day where the sun shines. Evidence of the effect of CO2 on global warming is completely obscured by the daily variation in energy transfers occurring because of weather. Read the details here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/26/a-decided-lack-of-equilibrium/#comment-2879258
There is no such thing as radiative forcing?
Riiight…
If you can explain this in fewer than 10000 words, Chic, pls do so.
It’s difficult to take seriously someone who says things like this:
“The topic of radiative forcing was recently reviewed in detail by Ramaswamy et al [2019] as part of the American Meteorological Society monographs series. This review provides a good start for a scientific and criminal fraud investigation into the climate modeling fraud. To begin, the scientific community should demand that this particular monograph be retracted and all further work on equilibrium climate modeling be stopped. “
Or this:
“Among other things, M&W threw out the Second Law of Thermodynamics along with at least 4 other Laws of Physics.”
C’mon Chic, you need to get your crank detector repaired.
“There is no such thing as radiative forcing? …If you can explain this in fewer than 10000 words, Chic, pls do so.”
Roy Clark mentions radiative forcing thirteen times in his comment at WUWT, which I referenced. I think he has a pretty good idea what is meant by that. He goes to great lengths to explain why it is a flawed concept. I too have explained in the past on this blog how it doesn’t properly take into account the dynamics of what is happening at the surface. But 10,000 words would not be enough to explain it to your closed mind. It’s like leading a horse to water sort of thing. You would be well advised to take Dr. Clark’s comment more seriously.
“It’s difficult to take seriously someone who says things like….”
What credentials do you have that would explain why anyone would value your opinion, comments, and judgement more than an accomplished scientist such as Roy Clark?
“Or this: ‘Among other things, M&W threw out the Second Law of Thermodynamics along with at least 4 other Laws of Physics.'”
Are you prepared to refute Clark’s claim that by using simplified math to explain complex physical properties, M&W disregarded the 2LoT and other ‘Laws of Physics’?
I don’t think there is any merit to arguments that suggest the analysis of energy fluxes is invalid. I mean it’s not like climate science invented this kind of analysis or has a monopoly on it. And no other discipline of science is fundamentally opposed to it AFAIK. So what’s the rub now? But, if you’re truly offended by modeling Earth’s energy budget in this manner what alternative model would you propose?
bdgwx,
I didn’t suggest anything of the kind. Someone else maybe? Offended? You kidding, I love this stuff. But the modelling is clearly flawed and the why is being explained to you by Dr. Roy Clark and elsewhere if you choose to open your mind and investigate.
As for an alternative model, Dr. Clark outlined the ingredients. It will be a monumental task to find a mathematical solution that combines all components impacting the climate system, of which the various radiative processes are only partially involved. But simplifying the equations and major reliance on CO2 forcing is not cutting it.
A radiative force is nothing more than a contribution to an energy flux. For example, the solar energy flux at TOA is about 340 W/m^2 on average. Solar grand cycles can change this by maybe 2.0 W/m^2. Thus the radiative force from grand solar min to grand solar max is +2.0 W/m^2. Is this not the type of analysis that Dr. Clark is objecting to?
And I get. Energy budget analysis is but a simplification of a more complex world. If we had the resources available to track every single molecule, photon, and whatnot that happen to be in play then that would be ideal. But we can’t do that. That’s why we create models that simplify the task. And when given the choice of two or more models scientists pick the one that best matches reality. If Dr. Clark or anyone else as a different model that matches reality better and which is just as simple then they should present it for review so that everyone can benefit from it.
“Is this not the type of analysis that Dr. Clark is objecting to?”
Probably not. However, he would object to using the average solar flux in any climate model. It goes from 0 at night to over 1000 W/m^2 in some places.
“Let’s see you do better” is not a very scientific argument, bdgwx.
“M&W threw out the Second Law of Thermodynamics along with at least 4 other Laws of Physics.’
Chic, this the science equivalent of what you see in the grocery store line on the National Enquirer and the Weekly World News.
Ie slander.
This guy is a crank if he believes such nonsense.
OTOH. If you can actually show us how M&W have violated the 2LOT and 4 other laws of physics, I will eat my hat.
But Im not too worried.
If he objects to using average fluxes in general then he probably objects to energy budget analysis. What alternate model can he offer that provides us with the ability to quickly and easily predict how the climate system will respond to a change in a climate modulating agent?
And yes. The acceptance of a model is heavily influence by its ability to explain and predict the world we live in. Even models with lesser skill are still useful especially if they are simpler to work with. A good example of this is Newtonian Mechanics and General Relativity. NM does not provide the same level of skill as compared to GR, but it’s still useful because it is simpler and yields adequate results for many use cases. But if you need more precision you move over to GR and live with the added complexity.
The point here is that if Dr. Clark does not want scientists to use energy budget models then he needs to give them an alternative otherwise his criticisms boil down to what I call nuh-uh arguments.
“But 10,000 words would not be enough to explain it to your closed mind.”
Yes I admit it, I am closed minded to cranks. I’ve learned from experience that people who throw out nonsense of great length like this guy are not worth my time.
I used to get papers explaining how Einstein got relativity all wrong. At first I was intrigued enough to investigate.
Not anymore. Now ‘How Einstein got it all wrong’ gets instantly deleted.
Let me give you an example of how energy budget and radiative forcing analysis is useful. Right now the geosphere is accumulating energy at a rate of ~10e21 joules/yr. This works out to ~0.6 W/m^2. Using energy budget analysis we can say that a radiative force of +0.6 W/m^2 would explain this heat uptake. If our hypothesis is that Sun provided this radiative force then TSI would have had to increase by about (0.6 * 4) / 0.7 = 3.4 W/m^2. You can test that hypothesis by measuring the TSI. Is the model perfect? Nope. Is it useful? Absolutely. I was able to reason through this in just a couple of minutes and without the aid of a complex computer algorithm or even a calculator. Physicists invoke this kind of simplification when they reason through object motions using Newtonian Mechanics instead of General Relativity.
Ate,
Dr. Clark explains it this way: “The assumption of an ‘average equilibrium infra-red atmosphere’ is [like equilibrium average flux arguments] also incorrect. This is based on conservation of energy arguments that set aside the Second Law of Thermodynamics and ignore the dynamic nature of the tropospheric heat engine. In the original climate model formulation developed by Manabe and Wetherald (M&W) in 1967, an exact TOA flux balance between the absorbed solar flux and the emitted LWIR flux was used. The surface was assumed to be a blackbody surface with zero heat capacity and a fixed atmospheric distribution of relative humidity was also used [M&W, 1967]. These simplifying assumptions created CO2 induced global warming as a mathematical artifact of the model calculations. The ‘average equilibrium infra-red atmosphere’ is just a mathematical construct that leads to a simple set of meaningless flux equations.”
You can get references and more detail here: http://venturaphotonics.com/files/The_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
Nate,
Your appeal to a non-authority is a non-starter. If you can make a valid criticism of Dr. Clark’s presentation, please do.
Also, if rebuttal’s to Einstein’s work predicted catastrophic climate, I wouldn’t read it either.
bdgwx,
Do you seriously think your back-of-the-envelope calculations justify short-cuts in modelling validation?
A quick look is all it deserves. His circuit analogy is nonsense.
Just because a circuit has storage and a delay does not make it behave non linearly. It will respond the same way to a 1 volt signal or a 10 v signal.
“hat set aside the Second Law of Thermodynamics”
Declaration without evidence. Just another debunked denialist meme.
Chic, you may find cranks appealing, but the rest of us do not.
Do I think the radiative forcing model is perfect? Nope. Do I think it glosses over details? Yep. Do I think it is valid and useful? Absolutely!
bdgwx,
Useful for what exactly? Predicting CO2 sensitivity? Future temperatures anywhere? Fodder for journalists and politicians to brainwash students and frighten people?
Please explain.
‘These simplifying assumptions created CO2 induced global warming as a mathematical artifact of the model calculations. ‘
If he could stick to the message that the Earth is more complicated than this 1960s model, then fine. Of course everyone already knows this.
That is very different from saying the models have 2LOT violations and produce global warming as an artifact. That is an unproven slander.
The 1960s model and its followers gave us useful qualitative results, and insight into what was happening. But no one thought of them as the end of the story.
‘However, he would object to using the average solar flux in any climate model. It goes from 0 at night to over 1000 W/m^2 in some places.’
Why does that matter for calculating warming over decades? No one has explained this.
Just to follow up with daily cycle and his circuit analogy.
Suppose I have an RC circuit. Suppose I apply a 1 V sine wave with a 24 second period (analogous to daily solar forcing).
Suppose that with this input signal the circuit responds by charging of the capacitor to 1 V with a delay of 3 seconds compared to the input signal.
Now I can simultaneously apply a ramping voltage to this circuit that ramps 1 millivolt/s (analogous to slow climate change forcing).
In response the capacitor slowly charges up at 1 mV/s.
Now the response of the circuit to the 1 V 24 second sine wave and the 1 mV/s ramp turn out to be completely independent of each other!
The periodic 24 s signal does nothing to the circuits response to the ramp signal.
Yes? No?
Nate,
I responded in a new thread.
“Making fairy tales about CO2 causing the fires…”
No one is making that claim. The closest claim to that, made by reputable sources, is that AGW makes bush fires worse.
As I said in my first reply to you:
“Climate change doesn’t start fires. It changes the conditions they flare up in.”
No need to make straw man arguments.
‘CO2 causes AGW”AGW causes climate change”climate change causes fires’.
Your use of words is Semantics that mean you claim in essence that ‘CO2 causes fires’.
Where is your evidence?
“climate change causes fires”
That’s YOUR fabrication, not my quote. Stop lying about what people say.
I don’t care what your quote is. That is what you are saying.
When you claim ‘reputable sources’ (without naming them) state AGW makes bush fires worse.
In your lexicon ‘climate change’ obviously means AGW climate change.
When you state ‘climate change doesn’t start fires. It changes the conditions they flare up in’ All you’re doing is assigning blame for the current fires on climate change and by extension on AGW and by extension on CO2.
You’re essentially stating increased CO2 is responsible for the bad fires burning this year. Shortest distance A – B minus the BS.
Methinks you doth protest too much.
Ken,
You’re trying to use subjective feelings to repudiate an objective definition, as in your equating the words ‘changes’ and ’causes’, which have very different meanings.
When a statement reads ‘it changes the conditions’ that has a very different meaning than ‘it causes (the conditions)’.
change / cause have different meanings, you can look it up.
Ken, the evidence is so massive you could spend a lifetime reviewing the hundreds of thousands or even millions of pages of scientific literature spanning nearly all disciplines of science. Even the summarized collection compiled by the IPCC AR5 WGI report amounts to over 9,000 peer reviewed works. Sure, that’s a lot to take in, but the report itself is only 1500 pages so you can make it through this summary in a reasonable amount of time and will provide you with enough introduction that you can then use to branch out from there.
I care naught how many peer reviewed papers have been written.
Science is undergoing a major replication crisis where quality assurance is very poor.
Major businesses that are using science to develop new products are finding peer reviewed papers are correct less than 20% of the time.
Peer review is not a measure of quality; it only means that a scientific peer has reviewed someone’s paper so that it meets the requirements of any particular publishing journal.
You have to do the hard work of learning the science yourself if you expect to have any credibility with me.
Every government needs to stop swallowing UN IPCC junk science hook line and sinker. instead, governments need to start to test, check, and replicate any policy science including what passes for climate science. So far, that quality assurance has not happened anywhere.
“ajor businesses that are using science to develop new products are finding peer reviewed papers are correct less than 20% of the time.”
Pls do shows us a link for that one.
Everyone understands that science needs to be replicated again and again before it is considered established.
There is much in climate science that fits that criteria.
Try this: Youtube Professor Peter Ridd ‘The Replication Crisis’ Klimarealistene published 14 Nov 2019
You could also try reading Nigel Lawson’s book ‘An Appeal to Reason’ where he also describes ‘Peer Review’ in less than glowing terms.
Lots of other places ‘Peer Review’ is being complained about. See Roy Spencer’s blog where he complains of not getting published.
Peer review is well known to be imperfect. But, it is part of the scientific approach that overall, has served us well.
Nothing about your quote there.
But did you read this?
“Professor Fiona Fidler, who recently spoke on the replication crisis in Melbourne, expressed deep concern to The Saturday Paper that Ridd is using this issue as a rhetorical strategy against climate science. She said it is a categorical mistake to apply concerns regarding other fields of science to climate change studies.”
BDGWX,
I think Dr. Berry would welcome your debate or view over on his site. I’d like to hear it too. His paper is at edberry.com and you can comment or question below.
From Ed Berry:
Swiss Physicist Simon Aegerter has commented on my Preprint, and I have replied.
by Ed Berry, Ph.D., Physics
You may follow the scientific discussion of my preprint, “The Physics human carbon cycle,” here on edberry.com
I would suggest to Stephen, rather than just quoting Ed Berry, that you also quote his critics.
Then try to understand both, and come to your own conclusions that can be explained/defended in your own words.
Nate,
You would be welcome over there also. Dr. Berry welcomes criticism. You and BGDWX should be able to wear him out. I don’t want to just plagarize Berry’s work because that’s all I’d be doing is just repeating his ideas. You should meet him directly on the field of battle, mano o mano. If you have the nerve.
I have to retract a statement made above.
2019/20 = “More area burned in a single year..”
I since discovered that there have been greater areas burned in the past with respect to grassfires, which tend to be further inland than the ‘forest’ areas of Australia. So far 18 million hectares have been burned during the current bushfire season. In 1974 more than 100 million hectares were burnt, but these were mostly in remote regions (savannas), which had millions of acres of new growth from the record or near record rains in the affected regions earlier in the year. As fart as I’m aware, the current area burned for forest fire is the largest area covered in the instrumental record.
If you are interested in seeing the temperature for the hottest month, for every 5 x 5 latitude-longitude cell, then have a look at this coloured map:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/rats-average-daily-high-for-the-hottest-month
The temperature for the hottest month is the average daily high for the hottest month.
Notice how India, the Middle East, and northern Africa, get hotter than Australia.
Also, if you are interested, you can see the Winter-Summer temperature difference for every 5 x 5 latitude-longitude cell, on this coloured map:
https://agree-to-disagree.com/rats-winter-summer-temperature-difference
Have a look at the Winter-Summer temperature difference for Britain, compared to other countries at that latitude. The Gulf Stream stops Britain getting cold in Winter, and hot in Summer.
“Notice how India, the Middle East, and northern Africa, get hotter than Australia.”
Is this comment in relation to anything?
Use your imagination, Barry.
What is happening in Australia at the moment?
Some people are scaremongering that the Australian bushfires are caused by global warming.
I am pointing out that Australia is not one of the hottest countries.
Australia has bad bushfires because it is a very dry country. It has always been dry. Look at the history of bad bush fires:
1851 Black Thursday 12 lives lost
1926 Black Sunday 60 dead 1,000 bldgs
1939 Black Friday 71 dead 5,000 bldgs
1967 Black Tuesday 62 dead 1,300 bldgs
1983 Ash Wednesday 75 dead 3,000 bldgs
2009 Black Saturday 180 dead 3,500 bldgs
There were bad bushfires, long before global warming started.
Also, in 1960 the population was about 10 million.
In 2019, the population is about 24.6 million.
In approximately 60 years, the population has increased by nearly 2.5 times.
Where do these extra people live? And does the larger population make bushfires seem worse?
Apparently you believe the claim is that these bushfires are caused by higher temperatures rather than drought conditions.
And notice how that list you provided all refer to single days.
Fires have been burning continuously now for 4 months. It is the “longest continuously burning bushfire complex in Australia’s history”.
Sheldon Walker
“I am pointing out that Australia is not one of the hottest countries.”
In Death Valley (California), it is always hot during the summer; in Verhoyansk (Northeastern Siberia) it is always cold during the winter.
Apart from the fact that “becomes colder/hotter” is a far more important matter than “is the coldest/hottest”, you omit a major aspect.
Like the Dust Bowl, bush fires are not so much a consequence of warmth only.
The region most affected in the Dust Bowl era in the 1930’s
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Map_of_states_and_counties_affected_by_the_Dust_Bowl%2C_sourced_from_US_federal_government_dept._%28NRCS_SSRA-RAD%29.svg
was by no means the hottest part of CONUS at that time.
If we want to obtain valuable data, we must here extend the isolated factor ‘temperature’ by two other factors:
– precipitation (or better: its complement, the lack of it);
– wind.
If we had data allowing us to create a time series based on the product of temperature, inverted precipitation and wind, I think we could explain the situation in CONUS in the 1930’s and in Australia these days in a much more accurate manner.
I don’t like to assume, Sheldon.
It’s hotter in some large deserts than in Australia. Can you think of a reason why there might be a higher risk of bush fire in Australia than in a desert?
Your point was unbelievably simplistic. My response is on that level. I’ll give the discussion the complexity it deserves when you do.
If you are implying that bush fires have little to do with ambient temperature, you should not be discussing the matter at all.
I also wonder what the point of that comment was.
I also wonder whether you have considered the fact that not all locations have their warmest/coldest months in January/July.
For example, Manila has its warmest month in April.
Sheldon Walker
One more time, it is impossible to post…
https://tinyurl.com/s3sb45v
Sun ? we don’t need no stinkin Sun – sez climate modelers
https://youtu.be/p-dq3JbZdr4
https://youtu.be/wt2dAq6CQas
Pity this guy has no training or experience in solar physics.
Solar variation is included in climate models, has been weighed and discussed for decades including in the IPCC reports, and this youtuber is lying that the sun is a ‘taboo’ topic in climate science. Why would anyone willingly post this patently obvious nonsense?
To what extent? The CMIP6 has increased the effect of solar forcing from CMIP5, but is the magnitude of the solar model forcing sufficient to align with reality? Your model is just a toy. Climate modelers can use them to try to grasp the vast array of confounding variables in our climate system, but at the end of the day, they are just a SimCity representation of the real, far more complex world.
I believe the KNMI site has the CMIP6 solar inputs used.
You are partially correct. The CMIP suite of models is only a simulation of a far more complex world. But that’s kind of the point of a model. Make something simple out of something complex so that predictions can be made easily. Simple models of many complex real world phenomenon are used ubiquitous throughout all disciplines of science and no one describes them as “toys”. So I don’t think this is a good argument.
But if you truly believe the CMIP suite of models are mere “toys” then is it safe to assume that you have an alternate model that exhibits more skill? Can you present it now for review and show how either observations fall within its 95% confidence envelope a higher percentage of time or show how that confidence envelope is narrower?
If you actually believe the climate models show anything else than results that people constructing them already decided beforehand you are completely deluded , or just a climate shyster who is on the scam with them.
Uh… your youtube ‘expert’ claimed that solar influence was a taboo topic and not included in climate models. Which is utter crap.
Somehow you managed not to respond to that. Maybe you need some evidence…
From the 2001 IPCC report nearly 20 years ago, under the chapter titled Radiative Forcing of Climate Change:
6.11 Solar Forcing of Climate, which includes TSI, historical solar variation, solar influence on cosmic rays and climate, and ultraviolet solar radiation.
A taboo subject?
And in the chapter on climate modeling from the same report…
“Energy balance/upwelling diffusion climate models and Earth system models of intermediate complexity, when forced with volcanic and solar variations for the past 400 years, capture the cooling associated with the Little Ice Age (Betrand et al., 1999; Crowley and Kim, 1999; Free and Robock, 1999), although they are not capable of assessing regional climatic anomalies associated with local feedbacks or changes in atmospheric dynamics.”
Furthermore, the report recommended:
“Taken together, we consider that there is an urgent need for a systematic 20th century climate intercomparison project with a standard set of forcings, including volcanic aerosols, changes in solar irradiance and land use, as well as a more realistic treatment of both the direct and indirect effects of a range of aerosols.”
Which is what happened. Latest IPCC report says of the models:
“For the natural forcings a recommended monthly averaged total solar irradiance time series was given, but there was no recommended treatment of volcanic forcing. Both integrated solar irradiance and its spectrum were available, but not all CMIP5 models used the spectral data. The data employed an 1850-2008 reconstruction of the solar cycle and its secular trend using observations of sunspots and faculae, the 10.7 cm solar irradiance measurements and satellite observations (Frohlich and Lean, 2004).”
From the chapter on model evaluation, AR5.
Difficult to know if the youtuber is lying or just has no idea. But he can safely be dismissed as a crank for describing as “taboo” the scientific interestg in solar affects on climate, and claiming it is not included in climate modeling.
Respond to THAT, Eben.
@ Barry
Greenies preventing off season back burning occurs all the time in the off season. It was happening back in the late 1980s when I lived in East Gippsland. Its been happening the whole time since. Just because its not reported upin everytime it happens and everywhere that it happens doesnt mean its not happening and hasnt happened, or do you prescribe to the same Leftist ideologue theory of mass communication has held by the propagandists at the ABC that if its not on facebook or in the news, then it didnt happen?
Residents dont protest the back burning. They never have. Or dont you revognize the stamp of ABCs propagabda when you see it? Ive lived there. The residents WANT the back burning. Its unwashed moronic Leftist ideologue greebs that travel around and disrupt and prevent back burns while they collect their dole payments.
Let me ask you this, why do you think the ABC took the article down?
Pity this guy has no training or experience in solar physics.
Sorry – responded to the wrong post.
It was local residents that protested the back burning, according to the page you linked.
You saying that the post was false?
I’m sure there are some people who have protested back burning. I just don’t think it has much impact, if any. And my source for thinking that is the fire chiefs, who have been calling the contention political rhetoric.
The greenies are always an easy blame. But I listen to the people who are in charge of fighting fires and advise on back burning, and they point to other issues.
Increase in magnetic activity in the southern solar hemisphere.
https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00995/iyygy9klh6zl.png
Given that the fall from solar maximum to minimum produced no measurable change in global average temperature, analysing the other half of the cycle will be just as big a waste of time.
Encouraging study is more helpful to the warming cause than discouraging it.
Pulse width modulation is a phenomenon used in electronic circuits where voltage goes from high to low in rapid succession across varying time intervals and thus causes average voltage to fluctuate. This is used in electric motors to influence the speed of the motor and to allow smooth acceleration or deceleration to occur, since the motor is either fully on or fully off. Similar concepts are used in electric heaters or ranges.
Point is that when you have a water-based planet like Earth is, the water acts as a dampener for the climate. It stores energy when solar activity is high and releases energy when solar activity is low. This occurs from day to night as well as decade to decade, since certain oceanic cycles last for many decades and sometimes centuries.
It’s unlikely that you would see a measurable difference until we see the AMO and PDO flip.
Chris: I’ve the oceans described as a ‘climatic flywheel’ by a meteorologist – a very apt description.
Climate flywheel – That is a good analogy. And right now that flywheel is charging up at a rate of at least +0.6 W/m^2 even as the troposphere, cryosphere, and land continue to take up energy and warm as well.
But solar cycle 24 had lower activity than cycle 23, which was smaller than cycle 22. To continue the PWM analogy, the “pulses” have been getting smaller for 30 years while temperatures have warmed.
It seems that activity in both hemispheres will occur at different times. First, spots should appear in the southern hemisphere. Two waves are not in phase.
“The northern polar field is still gaining strength while the southern polar field reached its peak in November 2015.”
https://solen.info/solar/polarfields/polarfields.png
Different activity in both solar hemispheres is of great importance, as shown in cycle 24. In cycle 24 there were two separate solar peaks in both hemispheres, which significantly weakened the total solar activity. The more these peaks are not in phase with each other, the weaker the solar cycle will be.
It seems that the wave shift in the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun is currently several years, in a cycle of 24 it was about 2 years.
There is a chance for further rainfall in the south of Australia. Cold fronts are moving east faster.
@Sheldon
[Australia has bad bushfires because it is a very dry country.]
Its not that simple. Bushfires are a multi-variable problem. For example, the driest part of Australia, the interior, has the fewest fires.
The Cascade mountains of Oregon and Washington get copious amounts of annual precipitation, yet forest fires are extremely common.
******
The point is, trying to prove a climate change connection, or not, is very difficult. This is why computer models are useful.
That’s because if these interior parts of Australia are so dry and so barren all the time, there’s never any time for plant growth to occur. There’s no wildfires in the Sahara desert either and we all know how hot and dry that is. If an area gets hit with a decade of good rain and then suddenly gets hit with 5 years of drought and high winds, I would call that a good candidate for wildfires…since vegetation has had a chance to grow in the interim between droughts.
Big arson problem in Australia. Just one such article about it.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7850371/Out-control-bushfire-heading-western-Sydney-hit-suburban-areas-TODAY.html
Don says:
January 6, 2020 at 12:25 AM
Big arson problem in Australia. Just one such article about it.
I was wondering when that factoid would be bought up in this other wise contentious discussion.
It’s a well-known problem. Of the roughly 50% of ignition that is caused by humans, how much is deliberate and how much accidental is hard to judge.
And this.
https://twitter.com/7NewsSydney/status/1213002373766901760?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1213002373766901760&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Fthedailychrenk.com%2F2020%2F01%2F05%2Fwalkleys-nothing-chicks-free%2F
Don says:
January 6, 2020 at 12:32 AM
And this.
Scanning down the page at your link I find this very interesting story:
Aussie Fireman Liam Sheahan who cleared trees from the perimeter of his property in 2002 to create a fire break was fined $50,000. In 2009 when bush fire struck his house was one of the few in the area left standing.
Link to story
Im sure interesting/comforting to some, but really kind of a red herring.
Not explaining the big picture, is it?
In terms of the Australian Bush fires I saw an interview with an aboriginal the other day. I cannot remember the source, but he was very critical of both the lack of burning and the way that it was being done. Over thousands of years his ancestors had learnt how to manage the bush to prevent these events. He is employed by a number of areas to do the traditional burning. Where he has done it the damage has been far less. Where environmentalists have prevented him working it has been worse.
It seems to me that when it comes to the managing of nature the scientists could learn a lot from the people living on the land.
Unfortunately if you haven’t got a Ph.D. in climatology your knowledge isn’t acknowledged.
Pushback on that theory
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/nov/12/is-there-really-a-green-conspiracy-to-stop-bushfire-hazard-reduction
Nate
A former NSW fire and rescue commissioner, Greg Mullins, has written this week that the hotter and drier conditions, and the higher fire danger ratings, were preventing agencies from carrying out prescribed burning.
Yeah.
You can raze brush also as a way to prevent massive wildfires.
This also –
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfires/11817336 .
It turns out it is complicated. Who knew?
Yes. Why do people need simplistic views?
SOI has risen sharply for two days, which promises rainfall in Australia. Tropical storm in the northwest.
https://www.longpaddock.qld.gov.au/soi/
There seems to be a strong 60 year heat and drought signal in the Australian precipitation record corresponding to the conjunction of Jupiter and Saturn when opposed to the earth during it’s perihelion. The AMO also has a 60 year cycle called the Yoshimura, which shows up every 60 years, but when Jupiter and Saturn converge near Jupiter’s perihelion. There SEEMS to be some evidence here that the AMO can not drop until after the Jupiter / Saturn conjunction at opposition to earth’s perihelion has completed. This 60 year cycle also conveniently is timed with the exceptional SSW event that just occurred in the SH. Who’s getting on board with orbital forcing impacting our climate? The evidence is growing. People are starting to take note.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2892165210802683/?d=n
Scott R,
I have a number of comments to make.
1. The great conjunction between Jupiter and Saturn does not occur until the end of December 2020. Consequently attributing drought conditions over the past 3 years to this seems ridiculous. Should we expect next summer’s bushfires and drought conditions to be even more extreme? The last time a great conjunction that was as close to the earth’s perihelion was December 1980 i.e 40 years difference, not 60.
2. You show the annual rainfall data for the whole of Australia. There has been a delay in the summer monsoon up north but the deficiency in rainfall that contributed to the current fires was in the southern half of Australia. Bushfire activity in the summer months tends to be in the drier southern half of the continent. The data for the southern half is even more noisier than that for the whole of Australia.
3. Your data analysis of the rainfall and it’s relationships to the AMO is a wonderful example of a type 1 statistical error. Actually I can’t claim that as, you have not tried even to do any statistical test to establish any relationship, let alone a causal one. I think you have just tried to gas light your readers by encouraging an eyeball approach.
Using the this procedure, I will also join the party and suggest that the rainfall in Australia is primarily determined when the moon is in Aquarius and Jupiter aligns with Mars.
Eyeballing this incredibly noisy data to make some non-meaningful claim is textbook Apophenia see – https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia. I am not sure whether this is a case of “Patternicity” , “Agenticity” or just another example of a “Clustering Illusion” or most likely all three.
To actually determine these types of relationships you would have to be more rigorous in your approach and employ a nethod such as tapered multispectral analysis.. An example of such rigour is
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13823-w .
This reference has a link to MATLAB code which can be downloaded which you then could apply to your AMO and rainfall data. If you don’t have Matlab then you can download a trial version.
Finally while contemplating your work, I peered out my window and saw a cloud of smoke that seemed to spell out the word “nonsense”. It must have been a coincidence.
Mike R,
1. It is not like Jupiter and Saturn line up and for 1 moment in time they cause this to happen. The energy input from this formation most likely follows some kind of sin curve with a period of 60 years. Other forcers stack on top of this, which causes the ultimate peak to happen without an exact period (some slop). Even though the conjunction occurs in December 2020, the next time earth hits its perihelion, Jupiter and Saturn would have rotated slightly past opposition to the earth. It’s not the conjunction itself that is important, it is the shift of the barycenter of the solar system towards the earth perihelion during this formation. You can read about that in Zharkovas paper.
Ah Zharkova. She seems to have form in generating controversy see –
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2019/07/07/nature-scientific-reports/ .
The Affaire Zharkova reminds me of the controversy surrounding the late Immanuel Velikovsky (see http://skepdic.com/velikov.html) .
The archaeologists thought Velikovsky’s astronomical theories were interesting but the archaeology was totally nonsense while the astrophysicists thought the archaeology was interesting but the astronomy was garbage.
At least with Zharkova there is a consistency of view point between the climate scientists and the astrophysicists.
2. What is your point? Do you not see the 60 year cycle in this data?
3. Why is it so hard to believe that the orbits of the planets in particular Jupiter as it combines with Saturn and moves through it’s aphelion and perihelion, and in respect to the earth’s perihelion and aphelion might influence the sun and our climate? The data is right there for you to see. It is in every single long term proxy data that the orbit of the earth has drastic impacts on our climate. Why wouldn’t short term changes have an impact? It is logically sound.
Footnotes: Mars isn’t going to do much and can be completely ignored. M / D^2. None of my work is based in astrology… Basically, the baseline is Jupiter’s movement between aphelion and perihelion, and everything else creates a small delta from there based on M / D^2.
Scott, with regards to point 2.
“What is your point? Do you not see the 60 year cycle in this data?”
This is your only response with regard to the connection between the AMO and Australian rainfall? Amazing.
Yes I can see a signal of between 60 to 80 years cycle length (most papers refer to 70 years) in the AMO data. That is not the point.
What I was concerned about was your Facebook entry which has AMO graphical data labelled with Great Conjunctions that are out of phase with the AMO. They appear to be drawn so that each are coincident with a high frequency peak of which there are at least one hundred.
Remember that you stated that the effects of the Great Conjunctions can be spread over more than a year. My calculator tells me that a sine wave is within 5% of it’s maximum for 6 years (for a period of 60 years). So why label these particular points?
The other AMO data shown are shown with peaks labelled Gleissberg .
For those curious, this cycle is controversial see –
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/17/the-tip-of-the-gleissberg/.
Again these labels are dawn to coincide with narrow high frequency peaks. Are the maxima in the Gleissberg cycles known that precisely or are you using artistic licence again?
The other troubling aspect of this Facebook post is the legend which refers to Uranus and Gleissberg. Uranus’s orbital period is 84 years which is different to the 88 year Gleissberg oscillation.
Note that Mars (which you want to ignore) has more than 10 times the gravitational effect of Uranus upon the earth at opposition.
see –
https://www.theplanetstoday.com/gravitational_forces_of_the_planets.html
So now according to the gospel of Scott we have Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus involved. As there are, in the order of 100 high frequency peaks in the AMO, do you have an explanation for all of these?
There are hundreds of asteroids orbiting relatively closely (compared to Uranus) between Mars and Jupiter with the largest (Ceres) having a diameter of almost 1000 Km. Maybe you could look at the orbits and see if you can relate them to your peaks. Good luck with that.
Alternatively the peaks could be stochastic noise.
Lastly I don’t know what to make of your presentation of the Australian rainfall data. It is also very noisy. Are there particular features that correspond to the Great Conjunctions, Gleissberg cycles and the orbit of Uranus? Maybe you should have labelled them accordingly. Otherwise it is just there for entertainment value only.
Mike R,
Are you really satisfied with a conclusion that says there are no multidecadal oscillators? I really feel sorry for you if that is the case. The climate has amazing, elegant, predictable patterns just waiting to be discovered. I don’t know why you would want to ignore that truth. There are way to many links between planetary formations and the AMO for this to be apophenia. I’ve even used the central England recorded temperature data going back to the 1600s and the AMO pattern is still there. I don’t have to prove anything to you. If you want to put your head in the sand and ignore me, fine. Or you can take this information and see if there is any merit to it yourself. People do not change their minds arguing on a blog, only a personal investment in the research can do that. What is holding you back? Wouldn’t you rather know the complicated truth?
Scott,
With regard to the ‘truth’ and nothing but the ‘truth, I am glad that you, as the ultimate guardian of the ‘truth’ are letting us into the inner sanctum of your thoughts, complicated as they might be.
Also I am open to suggestion as to whether multidecadal oscillations are real and not artifacts. Michael Mann, who first coined the term AMO and has written numerous papers about the AMO since 1994, has expressed some doubt in his latest paper. Do you have particular criticisms of this paper? Let us all know. Maybe fire off a letter to Nature Communications.
As to whether you need to prove anything to me, all I can say is that based on the strength of your arguments re AMO and Australian rainfall, that I am eternally (or longer than a Milankovitch cycle, which ever comes first) grateful that you do not find this necessary.
Your contributions so far in this forum have received a lot of blow-back from those unfortunates that have some scientific background. In contrast, I am sure your Facebook cohort are a much more receptive audience to your ideas. Maybe that is where you should have left them.
Harmony and understanding
Sympathy and trust abounding
No more falsehoods or derisions
Golden living dreams of visions
Mystic crystal revelation
And the mind’s true liberation.
Bob,
Glad you are getting into the spirit of things.
Unfortunately Scotty appears to have been born under a bad sign. I think he needs to get his Chakra aligned or learn how to use statistical packages. Preferably the latter.
I thought that happened when Jupiter aligns with Mars, not Saturn.
Math is for squares!
There is no evidence in existence that CO2 has any warming effect on atmosphere, The theory has been concocted based on the primitive and false experiments and repeated ever since
https://bit.ly/2tEDVPS
Eben
Here is some real info for you:
documents.irevues.inist.fr/bitstream/handle/2042/39839/meteo_2011_72_31.pdf
Try at least once to do something meaningful:
– not to stop upon having quickly read the abstract;
– not to stop because you see the Trenberth diagramme again, but
– rather to translate this French stuff using Google’s translator.
I’m too busy to do what in fact is your job!
That, Eben, is real Science. The perfect opposite to your ridiculous TricksZone.
*
Some hints:
– CO2’s activity starts where H2O’s stops: above the tropopause;
– CO2 does not warm the atmosphere; it makes the output to space of Earth’s radiative LW response to solar SW radiation become less efficient, what results in Earth itself becoming warmer;
– the most hidden activity of CO2 is to help H2O’s intrusion into the atmospheric window during the next decades (that might become the major problem).
Fight global warming with global greening:
https://hellomd.com/blogs/articles/marijuana-legalization-is-going-global
Namaste
I wish the CO2 camp would provide some mathematical equations to calculate the heat capacity of CO2 molecules and compare that with the heat capacity of water molecules as they exist in nature in all forms (clouds, water vapor, ice and water). In the meantime we continue our unalarming, totally precedented 0.13C per decade rise in global temps as CO2 saturates and hits diminishing returns.
You can google for the specific heat capacities of carbon dioxide and water easily; no need to pose the question here. This information isn’t particularly useful in determining CO2’s planetary warming potential though.
You can estimate CO2’s radiative forcing and rate of saturation via the well known formula 5.35*ln(C/Ci) where C is the concentration now and Ci is the initial concentration. But even if the concentration did reach a point of near saturation tipping point feedbacks could still lead to further warming due to the catalyzation from the initial CO2 induced warming.
I have read the articles, but the important point is being missed. The aboroginal method is different to the current method. Thousands of years of understanding and practice are being ignored.
From Ed Berry:
From the first Earth Day on April 22, 1970, to the Earth Summit in June 1992 and thereafter, climate alarmism was born, raised and promoted in politics, not science.
In 1972, Maurice Strong founded the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). His lifetime goal was to transform the UN into a world government. In 1978, Professor Bert Bolin of Sweden and his tiny band of meteorologists proposed the rise in atmospheric CO2 causes a rise in temperature. In 1985, Strong made Bolin’s climate theory a key part of UNEP.
In 1987, Strong managed the UN Brundtland report that warned human CO2 could raise global temperatures, harm agriculture, “raise sea levels, flood coastal cities and disrupt national economies.” The report called for a major global effort to curb carbon dioxide emissions.
In 1988, Strong formed the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC’s goal is NOT to find the true cause of climate change but to convince you that human emissions cause climate change.
IPCC is a marketing organization, not a scientific organization.
In 1990, IPCC’s report claimed human CO2 caused global warming. It warned we must reduce our CO2 emissions by 60 percent to save the planet. Thereafter, environmentalists morphed into climate activists because IPCC’s climate claims supported their environmental agenda.
In 1992, Strong, chaired the UN “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro. Strong declared, “We need a system of global governance through which nations can cooperate and deal with issues they cannot deal with alone. The ultimate example is climate change.”
“We may get to the point, where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”
The cause of climate change is a subject of theoretical physics, not of ecology. Ecology makes three invalid assumptions: “natural” is good, the climate is fragile, and human influences are bad. Physics makes no such assumptions.
For example, IPCC’s 2013 report claims incorrectly, “With a very high level of confidence, the increase in CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning [is] the dominant cause of the observed increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
“The removal of human-emitted CO2 from the atmosphere by natural processes will take a few hundred thousand years (high confidence).” IPCC’s claim “With a very high level of confidence…” reverses the scientific method.
No one can prove a theory is true. Science can only prove a theory is wrong.
IPCC and climate alarmists have abandoned the time-tested scientific method. They exclude evidence that proves their theory is wrong.
This is “confirmation bias” and it contradicts the scientific method.
In true science, proof that a theory is wrong prevails over all opinions, consensus, and so-called evidence used to support the theory.
The proof is simple.
Simple inspection of IPCC’s 2013 report shows IPCC made gross errors in its calculation of the human carbon cycle. IPCC’s gross scientific errors are the basis of all climate alarmism. You do not need a Ph.D. in physics to understand IPCC’s errors. If you can balance your checkbook, you can understand IPCC’s errors.
Anyone who understands high-school physics and math can, with a little instruction from me, calculate the true human carbon cycle. It is not rocket science. It is something every science teacher should learn and teach.
The answer, easily calculated, shows all human carbon emissions from 1750 through 2019 have added only1 percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle. Meanwhile, nature has added 3 percent, likely due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age. Human emissions have increased atmospheric CO2 by 31 ppm while nature has increased it by 100 ppm. Since we can’t control nature, all climate treaties are worthless.
If human emissions stopped in 2020, then by 2100 only 8 ppm of human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere. There is no “climate emergency.” We will not be “boiled frogs.”
—Ed Berry a certified consulting meteorologist by the American Meteorological Society, and CEO of Climate Physics, LLC. He lives in Bigfork.
Copyright (c) 2020 Daily Inter Lake Edition 1/6/2020, Kalispell, Montana, USA
(Ed Berry, of Bigfork, Montana, has a PhD in theoretical physics with minors in atmospheric physics and math.)
Yeah look, the red dots are a small part of the atmosphere:
https://tinyurl.com/tq2h8az
I couldn’t help but notice that Berry still either avoids the question of where the carbon came from altogether or through a series of equivocations implies that it came from the ocean. The problem…multiple lines of evidence clearly and decisively prove that carbon in the ocean is increasing. Harde and Salby are evasive on this matter as well. If your model cannot explain simple carbon budget concepts then what good is it?
That didn’t copy over very well:
https://www.dailyinterlake.com/letters_to_the_editor/20200106/climate_alarmists_have_abandoned_scientific_method?__s=sshbhnztg78hprygmdtu
During the last NH summer, while the earth was in it’s aphelion, Jupiter and Saturn joined it there. The sun was therefore farther away from the earth than average. This allowed the NH ice to continue it’s recovery off of the 2012 ice minimum. Now the snow cover in the NH is above 1 standard deviation.
https://globalcryospherewatch.org/state_of_cryo/snow/fmi_swe_tracker.jpg
Last month’s NH TLT was the warmest in the 40 years of satellite data. Are you saying the rough alignment of the Earth, Jupiter and Saturn last summer warmed the northern hemisphere and led to more snow in December?
* warmest December, not warmest month
I looked at the ephemeris data. The aphelion of 2019 was 1.016754 compared to 2018 of 1.016696 for a difference of 0.000058. That means the radiative force was -0.03 W/m^2 relative to 2018. Do you think -0.03 W/m^2 in the NH summer of 2019 can explain your graph? Also note that the perihelion of 2020 was closer than 2019 with a +0.03 W/m^2 effect that washes out on an annual basis. In other words the annual change from 2018 to 2019 was 0.000 W/m^2. And note that Jupiter and Saturn do not change the average distance between the Sun and Earth.
bdgwx,
Last year’s snow mass was also above average. Looking at the TSI departure between this year and last year isn’t that meaningful when you are talking about a 60 year cycle. How are you calculating your watts per meter sq? Are you just working that out based on the distances alone or are you considering the changes in solar activity on the sun itself due to the orbits of the planets?
I follow what you are saying as far as average distance, but the average isn’t important to the arctic / Antarctic. Only if the combined forcers of many different things can tip things towards a new direction during the summer melt. (rare)
I calculate the solar radiative force via the inverse square law where 1 AU is 1360 W/m^2 then normalize it to the cross section capture by dividing by 4 and finally adjusting for the albedo effect by multiplying by 0.7. Note that I’m only including the radiative force as result of orbital mechanics. Changes in solar activity would obviously contribute to the total solar radiative forcing effect. We could calculate that as well if you’d like, but I suspect it would be pretty small. You have the TSI data already do you not? Just remember RF = dTSI/4 * 0.7.
I do agree that perihelion and aphelion are fundamentally different in how solar irradiance changes manifest in polar regions. For example, the Arctic gets little or no sunlight during perihelion so perturbations in the perihelion distance don’t have the same magnitude of effect as perturbations in the aphelion distance.
Craig T,
Do you really think the warmest December with a departure of 1/2 deg c is going to make any difference on how fast ice builds in the arctic? I was talking about SOLAR FORCING. The sun isn’t even up in the arctic in December. If you want to melt ice in the arctic, the only way to do that is during the summer. Ice grows and declines on a multi-decadal scale based on decades of solar inputs. One favorable conjunction for the growth of ice is not going to reverse an ice mass balance that took 40 years to create. Since the ice doesn’t spring back instantly, neither do temperatures on land or in the ocean. These things roll over slowly. Once it gets going, the cooling is self reinforcing and can go for a long time. A tipping point has been reached and this has already started to happen.
Here is how long it has been since the maximum arctic TLT was reached, the temperature at the time, and the last monthly reading.
Jan: 2016, 2.46, -.18
Feb: 2016, 1.54, 1.03
Mar: 2016, 1.48, 0.96
April: 2016, 1.87, .92
May: 2010, 1.42, .98
June: 2012, 1.44, .9
July: 1998, .97, .33
Aug: 2016, .81, .44
Sep: 2016, 1.26, .75
Oct: 2016, 1.65, .99
Nov: 1996, 1.22, 0.56
Dec: 2018, 1.37, 0.66
Arctic? You were talking about the northern hemisphere. And I do think a +0.6 anomaly has more impact on ice mass than the alignment of Jupiter and Saturn.
On that theme, are you claiming the gravitational pull of Jupiter and Saturn affects the energy the Sun puts out or the pull affects the Earth in some way to impact climate?
Craig T,
It is likely a combination of the solar activity changes from the movement of the planets + the change in distance between the earth and the sun due to the barycenter of the solar system shifting as Jupiter and Saturn travel thru their orbits, and their respective perihelions and aphelions. Have I broken this into components? No. There are so many components to climate. It is unbelievably complex. To be honest, I am missing a MAJOR player here. I don’t understand what is causing TSI to rise even with the same number of sun spots since the 1600s. As long as that is happening, we will stay in the up trend. I have the impression that this cycle is what will be ending with the GSM when the magnetic dipoles of the sun NH and SH start to create interfering waves. I don’t have all the answers. My opinions are fluid, changing as more information comes in.
Scott,
Again, the Earth-Sun distance does not change as a result of the their mutual orbit around the barycenter. What changes this distance is the eccentricity of Earth’s orbit, but that’s only apparent when measuring the semimajor axis. Eccentricity does not affect the average distance between the two. That’s why over the course of one orbital cycle the integrated solar radiation received by the entire Earth is the same for every orbit all other things being equal.
Now, what Jupiter and Saturn might affect is solar activity and thus TSI. But that’s a concept different from orbitally induced solar radiative forcing perturbations. Changes here are induced by the solar dynamo.
bdgwx,
I think of the arctic and Antarctic separately. When you do that, eccentricity does matter. How the earth absorbs energy in the NH is different than the SH. Antarctica is a massive ice sheet with high reflectivity well below 0 deg c year round surrounded by open water. Not much changes there. The arctic DOES indeed change a great deal. Therefore, even though the energy input is the same, the feedbacks are different. Therefore it does matter if you add more energy to the north or the south even if the total is very nearly the same. This also ties into my observation about the southern ocean cooling trend between 1981 and 2001.
Idea:
1960-1980 type cycle – warms the Antarctic, cools the arctic
1980-2000 type cycle – warms the arctic, cools the Antarctic
2000-2020 type cycle – maintains the Antarctic, maintains the arctic
It’s the arctic that moves the global average. This matches milankovitch theory. We therefore should conclude the next phase is a global downtrend. I realize things don’t line up perfectly. Nobody is saying this is the only forcer by any stretch of the imagination. It is just one of many.
Yes. I agree. The distribution of the solar radiation is important. This is why Milankovitch cycles matter. But these cycles work over very long periods of time. These small orbital perturbations tend to wash out over just a few orbits.
bdgwx,
I’m proposing that these small perturbations are what cause the AMO cycle… as the earth moves between it’s normal 2 phases. It makes total sense that the earth should have 2 phases that it moves to and from. It’s like this… you have 2 adults sitting on a balance of equal weight. A small 1/2 pound object is placed on 1 side and causes the scale to tip. In order to move it back to the other phase, a larger weight will be required. Maybe 20 pounds. But when it moves back, it can not stop in the middle because the momentum carries it on. This 20 pound weight is what is causing the earth to switch between these 2 modes +AMO, -AMO. How high and low the AMO goes is moderated by the gleissberg.
Once it gets going, the cooling is self reinforcing and can go for a long time. A tipping point has been reached and this has already started to happen.
If nothing else that’s a bold call.
bdgwx,
Please visit this post. I’ve added the conjunctions to the AMO data so you can see how they may be influencing this cycle. This is the detrended AMO. Of course these conjunctions are not the only forcers, and the exact top and bottom of the AMO cycles is fine tuned by cycles of other period lengths. As for the underlying 170 year trend found in the non-detrended AMO data, I’m so far attributing that to the base TSI during solar minimums rising since the little ice age as we’ve discussed in the past. It may not be TSI itself, but high energy bursts from the sun, where TSI can make good proxy data. I’m expecting this trend to end as we go into a GSM. That will be coupled with the normal cycle declines for the AMO. It could be a nasty fall.
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2892165210802683/?d=n
Scott, I’m a little confused about something on your Facebook page. You say the Gleissberg cycle is the 84 year orbit of Uranus. Everywhere else I’ve seen Gleissberg cycle called the pattern where every 4th solar cycle is weaker, roughly an 88 year cycle.
How do you define the +Gleissberg and -Gleissberg? The last time Uranus was at its closest to the Sun was December 1966 and farthest from the Sun was Feb 2009. You say the last +Gleissberg was in 1998 and the last -Gleissberg in the late 40’s. How do you determine when Uranus has the least and most effect on climate?
Craig T,
I posted about the gleissburg here:
https://www.facebook.com/100000276969216/posts/2882757758410095/?d=n
The 1914- 1915 +Gleissberg cycle was caused by a major planetary alignment. Every planet except Saturn lined up and probably caused some tidal forces on the sun resulting in an increase in solar activity and the spike. This spike probably made the first higher low in the AMO. A very similar formation happened in 1997 (everything but Saturn). The signal from that one combined with the normal Jupiter perihelion cycle (12 year) in 1999, and the 1999 Yoshimura (20 year). This has created an exceptional period of high TSI, and a higher AMO peak. (the last 2 AMO peaks had – Gleissbergs suppressing them) The – gleissberg happens when Jupiter is near it’s aphelion with Saturn and Uranus suppressing it’s influences on the sun even further than normal. (1946, 1864) I’m still learning why it is that Saturn can start to interfere so soon after Jupiter passes, and why Uranus and maybe even Neptune is so important. The dynamics of the sun probably explain it… as one energy wave goes in and is reflected out, another tries to enter and they offset. I do not understand everything, but the data doesn’t lie. These conjunctions are having a huge impact.
If your theory is that the position of Jupiter and Saturn affects the TSI you should should be looking at TSI data.
https://spot.colorado.edu/~koppg/TSI/TSI_Composite-Thierry.png
There was no spike in TSI between 1997 and 1999. That period was the dip in TSI between solar cycle 22 and 23.
The AMO index is calculated by comparing sea temps in the North Atlantic Ocean to the equatorial Atlantic Ocean. It has to be detrended from the overall rise in global SST. I don’t see why changes in TSI would affect the Northern Atlantic more than other locations.
Great debate between Simon Aergerter and Ed Berry going on over at edberry.com answering and refuting many of your criticisms. Now’s your chance to show Ed Berry where he’s wrong. I’d like to hear it, and truly so would he. BGDWX, Nate?
Can you get Ed to post the entire letter from the American Journal of Climate Change rejecting his paper? I suspect they said a lot more than the paper “is completely opposite to the consensus of the academic community.”
Yeah so Simon asked the same question I asked and everybody else asks. Where did the excess carbon come from? Berry’s response…a question…specifically “Who says it cannot come out of the oceans? Who says that’s where the excess CO2 goes?”. Am I to assume this means he thinks the ocean is the reservoir? I don’t know because he’s equivocating. Let’s assume that’s what he believes anyway. This contradicts observations and many lines of evidence that say otherwise. That’s a big problem.
Thats a baseless lie. Environmentalists in Australia gave supported hazard reduction.
Anyone willing to handicap the race to the next negative global anomaly? We haven’t seen one for several years now.
Just make the baseline 2060 to 2090, easy peasy.
It looks like -0.4 drops below the trend line are possible with a strong La Nina. As of 2019/12 the trend line is at +0.318. Given that I would say it is likely that we’ll see a negative anomaly. What about a -0.2 anomaly? This might require a nudge from a large volcanic eruption timed with an ENSO-neutral or ENSO-negative phase or perhaps just a very strong La Nina. I’ll give you my partly off-the-cuff probabilities of 70% for < 0.0 and 30% for < -0.2.
Copernicus 2019:
https://climate.copernicus.eu/surface-air-temperature-december-2019
“Globally, the calendar year 2019 was 0.59°C warmer than the 1981-2010 average. The warmest twelve-month period was from October 2015 to September 2016, with a temperature 0.66°C above average. 2016 is the warmest calendar year on record, with a global temperature 0.63°C above that for 1981-2010. 2019 has become the second warmest calendar year in this data record. The third warmest calendar year, 2017, had a temperature 0.54°C above average.”
What about 2016 was not not Statistically Warmer than 2019?
The figures given by Copernicus:
2019 : 0.59C above average
2016 : 0.63C (+/- 0.06)
In brackets is the uncertainty. Assuming it’s the same uncertainty for 2019, then the uncertainties for each year overlap. To express that uncertainty another way:
2016 : 0.57 to 0.69 C
2019 : 0.56 to 0.65 C
above average.
The two years are not statistically distinct, therefore whether 2016 is warmer than 2019 can be expressed as a probability, even if the mean estimates are obviously different.
Well, I can’t subtract it seems, but the point doesn’t change.
2016 : 0.57 to 0.69 C
2019 : 0.53 to 0.65 C
Are you saying the world is dryer be ause of climate change? That is contradictory to today’s scientific consensus.
No.
The world has dry and moist parts. Dry parts can expand and get dryer or vice-versa in a warming world.
The weather cycles that create these dry areas, like the IOD, may change in a warming world to a state more favorable to drying of Australia. In fact there is evidence that this is happening.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Ocean_Dipole
Water cycling through a hot tub might be a useful analogy for understanding the carbon cycle.
Lets say 1 gallon of water per minute is pumped into the hot tub and 1 gallon per minute is pumped out. Water level is constant.
However, if I add just 1/2 cup of water per minute to the hot tub from my garden hose, the water level will rise.
A knucklehead may errantly conclude:
[Hey, 16 times more water is coming from the pump than from the hose. This proves the hose contribution to the rising water level is negligible!]
It’s a good analogy. And if you were to start with 10 gallons, put dye in the water entering from the hose, and leave the water from the other source untouched then you will see that after one hour you’ll have 11.88 gallons of which 0.36 gallons is dyed water. But the 1.88 increase is entirely due to the dyed water which means that 16% of the total mass is the result of the injection of dyed water even though the mixture is only 3% dyed water. You can play this out in Excel quite easily.
The mistake many people make is that they tell people that 3% of the water is dyed with the implication that the hose only contributed 3% to the total mass. But that’s totally wrong as you can clearly see with your tub analogy.
We live in an era of fake science , it is not just climate scientist, governments are pushing millions into institutionalized research but they are not obligated to return anything of any use and nobody is checking and auditing the fakery and useless garbage they produce
https://youtu.be/yc9PB_4F-OU
https://youtu.be/yqokbIxDvIw
We’re living in an era of fake news, with fake accounts and bots firing disinformation into social media platforms, and ideologues who value impact over illumination.
Nate,
My response here is continued from http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/01/uah-global-temperature-update-for-december-2019-0-56-deg-c/#comment-421595
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to try an explain a complex system in a way that we novices can understand. First I need you to confirm the analogy that you think Dr. Roy Clark was making here https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/26/a-decided-lack-of-equilibrium/#comment-2879258.
You seem to be comparing the sine wave RC circuit to solar insolation and the ramp signal to slow climate change forcing. I can picture the ramp signal increasing the output somehow without affecting the 24 second period. But I fail to see how this captures the essence of the problem showing how CO2 can be isolated as the control knob for any global warming?
The analogy is from here:
“The essential part that almost everyone seems to have missed in this paper is the time delay or phase shift between the solar flux and the surface temperature response. The daily phase shift in MSAT can reach 2 hours and the seasonal phase shift can reach 6 to 8 weeks. This is clear evidence for non-equilibrium thermal storage. The same kind of non-equilibrium phase shift on different time and energy scales occurs with electrical energy storage in capacitors and inductors in AC circuits – low pass filters, tank circuits etc.”
Yes circuits have phase shifts and time delays due to energy storage, just as the Earth surface does.
But so what? That does not cause any of the problems that he claims it does, like interfering with the much slower AGW forcing.
Looking further into his part II paper, I see ANOTHER clear flaw in his narrative.
“The increase in downward surface LWIR flux from an increase of 100 ppm in atmospheric CO2
concentration is approximately 0.15 MJ m-2-day-1. This can have NO MEASURABLE EFFECT on ocean
temperatures. It is simply absorbed within the first 100 micron ocean layer and dissipated as a
minute part of the total surface cooling flux. ”
Nonsense!
This is a myth that has been debunked here and elsewhere many times. Specifically, it is easy to show that although LWIR is absorbed in 100 microns its deposited heat quickly CONDUCTS to mm and cm of depth.
Furthermore, he understands that 50 W/m^2 LWIR emission from the ocean surface IS part of its energy budget.
And he readily admits that there is “1.5 W m-2
increase in the downward atmospheric LWIR flux from CO2 at the surface”
Now he tries to claim that a CHANGE to the LWIR flux of 1.5 W/m^2 will have NO EFFECT!
This makes absolutely no sense.
“But so what? That does not cause any of the problems that he claims it does, like interfering with the much slower AGW forcing.”
You don’t know that you have AGW forcing. You are building it in to your RC circuit model. Just like the climate models do.
“Specifically, it is easy to show that although LWIR is absorbed in 100 microns its deposited heat quickly CONDUCTS to mm and cm of depth.”
Is that a back-of-the-envelope calculation or will you provide the empirical evidence?
“Now he tries to claim that a CHANGE to the LWIR flux of 1.5 W/m^2 will have NO EFFECT!”
Is that his back-of-the-envelope calculation or does he provide the empirical evidence?
He may be referring to the daily thermalization phenomenon that X+1.5 W/m2 are incorporated into the bulk air near the surface and convected and advected to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated away without a significant effect on long term surface temperatures.
‘He may be referring to the daily thermalization phenomenon that X+1.5 W/m2 are incorporated into the bulk air near the surface and convected and advected to the upper atmosphere where it is radiated away without a significant effect on long term surface temperatures.’
Dont know what that is. Sounds implausible and speculative.
“You don’t know that you have AGW forcing. You are building it in to your RC circuit model. Just like the climate models do.”
He is saying it is present @ 1.5 W/m^2 of DWIR, just not causing warming. I am saying that is unsupported nonsense.
“Is that a back-of-the-envelope calculation or will you provide the empirical evidence?”
I have provided it here a couple of times. Heres a heat penetrtation calculator
https://thermtest.com/thermal-resources/heat-penetration-calculator#|timeinput_10
Select water from data base.
Select time, eg 10 s get 2.4 mm
100 s get 7.5 mm
“Dont know what that is. Sounds implausible and speculative.”
I’m not surprised by your predilection for AGW thinking. I already predicted 10,000 words would not be enough to it to you. You don’t want to understand. You only want to disagree. You probably think the same for me.
The 2 W/m^2 (you wrote 1.5 from somewhere I couldn’t find) is an additional DWIR that Roy Clark allows due to an addition of 100 ppm CO2 to the atmosphere. Does it matter whether we are talking about the past or the future? Anyway, he argues this is negligible for several reasons. The ocean penetration of an additional 2 W/m^2 is countered by wind and evaporation. Your calculation, while better than rough, is not relevant if it doesn’t come from actual data involving a real environment. Note his complaint in the WUWT comment about the lack of error analysis.
Another reason the delta CO2 is negligible is that on land, there is a heat capacity factor. There is an abosorp.tion of energy early in the day and a release later. All the energy re-radiated from the surface will be absorbed in first km or so and thermalized by inter-molecular collisions. Another 100 ppm CO2 will not alter that phenomenon. It will not prevent evaporation, convection, and advection from moving that energy up to where it can be radiated away. The contribution to global warming from additional CO2 exists only in the model that lives in your mind. Do you know of any actual data that proves me wrong?
“The ocean penetration of an additional 2 W/m^2 is countered by wind and evaporation. ”
That is pure speculation, and a little too convenient.
“Your calculation, while better than rough, is not relevant if it doesnt come from actual data”
Uh, other than established physics..way better than pure speculation.
“Another reason the delta CO2 is negligible is that on land, there is a heat capacity factor. There is an abosorp.tion of energy early in the day and a release later.”
Just dont see the relevance of this daily heat storage effect to long term warming.
My circuit example shows that daily heat storage can be perfectly independent of long term warming.
A good example on Earth is the seasonal warming from winter to summer being independent of the daily cycle.
“All the energy re-radiated from the surface will be absorbed in first km or so and thermalized by inter-molecular collisions. ”
Yes!
“Another 100 ppm CO2 will not prevent evaporation, convection, and advection from moving that energy up”
First law my friend! It doesn’t just disappear. It warms the troposphere. And therefore it can ALSO reradiate more IR down to the surface. Just unavoidable.
Nate,
You are just trying to poke holes in a well-documented analysis by Dr. Roy Clark. You say he’s a crank. You appeal to authority or the lack thereof. You say his numbers and explanations are speculation. You don’t see the relevance. You use a electrical circuit analogy to make your points. You say it does this, it does that.
What you haven’t done is provide any concrete evidence that anything Dr. Clark has written is wrong.
I get it. Your mind is made up. So I won’t bother any more … doing what I was doing. Beating a dead horse?
“I get it. Your mind is made up.”
I gave you facts and clear logic showing the flaws in his arguments.
You have no substantive rebuttal.
So attack the messenger. I get it.
‘What credentials do you have that would explain why anyone would value your opinion, comments, and judgement more than an accomplished scientist such as Roy Clark?’
Is your judgement that he is an ‘accomplished scientist’ based on his two papers in Energy and Environment?
For what its worth, this is what Wiki says about Energy and Environment, during the time his papers were published there:
“Under its editor-in-chief from 1998 to 2017, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, it was known for easygoing peer-review and publishing climate change denial papers.”
” Ralph Keeling criticized a paper in the journal which claimed that CO2 levels were above 400 ppm in 1825, 1857 and 1942, writing in a letter to the editor, ‘Is it really the intent of E&E to provide a forum for laundering pseudo-science?'”
“The journal has also been accused of publishing papers that could not have passed any reasonable peer review process, such as one in 2011 that claimed that the Sun was made of iron.”
E&E is classified as a social journal; not a science journal.
‘Now he tries to claim that a CHANGE to the LWIR flux of 1.5 W/m^2 will have NO EFFECT!’
Yep this is what he claims after noting that 50 W/m2 IR is emitted from water surface part of the water energy budget.
If so, then reducing that emitted 50 W by 1.5 W should have an effect on the energy budget of the water.
Yet he claims it will not. Feel free to read further.
Are you referring to section 1.6.2 here? http://venturaphotonics.com/files/The_Greenhouse_Effect.pdf
“An important concept in the interpretation of the weather station record is the night time transition temperature at which the land surface and air temperatures equalize and convection is significantly reduced [Clark 2019b; 2013b]. During the night, the surface cooling is limited mainly to the net LWIR emission. This is nominally 50 50 W m-2. During the day, as the sun heats the surface, convection increases and heat is conducted below the surface where it is stored and released later in the day.”
I think 2 W/m^2 is negligible compared to +/- 50 W/m^2.
Ha!
2 W/m2 is the AGW forcing. Yes it is smaller than 50 W/m2….and your point is?
Clark claims the net LWIR at night is 50 +/- 50 W/m^2 meaning zero to 100 W/m^2 depending on conditions. 2 W/m^2 is noise under that scenario.
My point is without hard data your AGW remains an unverified and largely untested hypothesis. At least Dr. Clark has provided an extensive analysis which should give you a lot to do besides continue to troll here. It does me anyway.
Ok. So your point has evolved.
Now it seems to be 2 is practically 0. Is that about it?
You realize that your rebuttals have taken on a quality of ‘somehow, some way we’ve got to find a way to make that extra warming go away.’
Chic, if I have a light bulb fed by a source that is 0-100 W and then I add 2 W from another source my light bulb’s output will always be 2 W higher than what it would have been otherwise.
The 1st Law of Thermodynamics: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.
That extra 2 W/m2 may be ‘negligible, but ‘noise’ cannot make it wink out of existence.
CB, See My Comment to Clark’s post on WUWT. His comment recognizes the physics of spectral lines, but fails to discuss the down welling LWIR from higher layers to lower ones, LWIR which can be absorbed in those lower layers. The temperature at the Tropopause may be ~170 k (or more) above the 2.7 K of deep space.
E. Swanson,
Without looking at you comment on WUWT, I’m guessing you think there is some positive net quantity of energy transfer from a point in the tropopause to another below. I contend that is impossible without a temperature inversion unless the 2LoT is no longer followed.
C B, No, I’ve never claimed that there’s a “positive net quantity of energy transfer from a point in the tropopause to another below”, although there might be some local exceptions, as you note. Overall, the IR EM transfer would be like that in the GPE model, where energy is transferred in both directions, but the net energy flow in the atmosphere is from the warmer toward the colder, eventually exiting the Earth at the TOA.
The GHE doesn’t “heat” the surface, it slows the rate of cooling, just as adding insulation to a body will result in a higher steady state temperature in a situation with constant energy supply.
You could say IR absorbing gases slow the rate of cooling if the atmosphere worked the same as insulation with solid materials. But it doesn’t.
I would hypothesize additional CO2 speeds surface cooling during the day by enhancing convective overturning. Of course at night the opposite occurs.
E. Swanson to Roy Clark: “I must have missed your explanation for the positive lapse rate in the Stratosphere.”
Isn’t that due to SW absorp.tion by ozone and other non-condensing gases?
[All the energy re-radiated from the surface will be absorbed in first km or so and thermalized by inter-molecular collisions. Another 100 ppm CO2 will not alter that phenomenon.]
Yes, so there is a globally averaged altitude at which most of the upwelling surface radiation is absorbed. I would argue that adding another 100 ppm CO2 would result in this altitude being slightly lower.
Given a lower altitude of emittance, the downwelling LWIR is now coming from a thicker, warmer layer of atmosphere, and is therefore more intense.
In other words, an increase in radiative forcing to the surface.
I don’t want to get involved in the discussion here but just to let you know that a number of the points you raise have been covered in the CMIP5 thread a little further down on this blog.
I point this out to you because once again I see that these theoretical questions on the greenhouse effect are being tackled with inappropriate intellectual tools. The greenhouse effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon. If you want to say anything relevant about it, it is imperative that you use only concepts compatible with thermodynamics, eliminate messy notions like forcing and take care to respect the principles of thermodynamics which are centered on the entropy concept.
Otherwise, you will continue to go around in circles.
‘eliminate messy notions like forcing and take care to respect the principles of thermodynamics’
How is it that ‘forcing’ doesn’t ‘respect’ thermodynamics?
IOW, are saying that mainstream science which is comfortable with ‘forcing’ is making some basic thermo error?
Not mainstream science, only climate pseudo science.
The concept of forcing, as defined in climatology, appears in Charney 1979 and is named in Hansen 1981.
It has of course never been applied outside climatology. As forcing ignores entropy by definition, it can only lead to errors.
More specificity needed. How does it ‘ignore’ entropy?
Jule Charney, a physicist, and the pioneer of physics based numerical weather modeling, knew what he was talking about.
It’s hard for me to be more specific. The definition of thermal forcing is nothing more than the removal of the notion of entropy. A thermal forcing is an energy flow defined only by its power in W. Thermodynamics is the science of entropy. Evacuating entropy is the same as evacuating thermodynamics. A science that evacuates confirmed knowledge is a pseudo science.
I’m not commenting on Jules Charney. History will.
As expected, nothing specific.
Heat transfer laws take account of entropy and second law.
Applying heat transfer laws to a problem is therefore implicitly taking account of entropy and second law.
Funny.
What is the entropy variation for a forcing of 1 W/m2?
‘What is the entropy variation for a forcing of 1 W/m2’
Not sufficient information to determine.
Nor could we determine much else about the system.
Not sure why thats a problem for you.
The forcing concept is simply useful, and you cannot seem to explain what the problem actually is.
See eg Roy’s most recent post. What do you think he has done wrong?
phi, I believe it was Gilbert Plass who first started modeling the climate in terms of W/m^2.
You’re out of line. Simplifying or misusing established science is different from inventing a concept that is incompatible with established science.
phi, Energy fluxes are compatible with thermodynamics and entropy and are used wildly outside of climate science.
I did not say the contrary. You are still off topic.
phi, you said “it is imperative that you use only concepts compatible with thermodynamics, eliminate messy notions like forcing”
Yeah, and?
A forcing as used in its most typical climate context represents a perturbation in Earth’s energy budget. It is usually, though not necessarily, given in units of W/m^2. This is not inconsistent with thermodynamics or any discipline of science. In fact thermodynamics embraces this line of thinking in many respects like is the case with the SB law for example.
Perturbation of the earth’s energy budget has an effect on the system that depends on the corresponding change in entropy. By definition, the effect of a thermal forcing does not depend on the entropy variation.
Yes of course. An energy imbalance caused by a positive forcing at the surface from a change in TSI would lead to a different entropy variation than a change in GHGs. The former results in more even heating throughout the vertical depth of the atmosphere whereas the later causes a steepening of the gradient between bottom and top due to warming at the bottom and cooling at the top. A forcing in the context in which it is used in climate science is not inconsistent with entropy concepts. In fact, it is this differing entropy variation that we can use as a test to falsify certain forcing hypothesis.
Phi, Your complaint regarding the use of thermodynamic principles to analyze AGW sounds great. But, where is your analysis? Are you perhaps referring to Dr. Clark’s work? The “Dragon Slayers” should note that Clark recognizes the fact that different layers of the atmosphere exchange radiant IR EM in both directions, i.e., energy flows from the higher, colder layers downward to warmer ones below (aka: the Green Plate Effect), as well as in the upward direction out to deep space.
“But, where is your analysis?”
I’ve given it and it’s very simple: thermal forcing ignores entropy. So it’s not a thermodynamic concept and it has nothing to do with a thermodynamic problem like the greenhouse effect.
“Are you perhaps referring to Dr. Clark’s work?”
No, but he too, quite rightly, rejects this stupid notion of forcing.
If you are right in pointing out that GHGs have a thermal effect on surface temperatures, you are unfortunately not doing so within the theoretical framework of thermodynamics.
The Dragon Slayers forget the first law of thermodynamics, you forget the second. That’s no better.
phi wrote:
The first sentence says nothing about how the GHG’s might not be “within the theoretical framework of thermodynamics”. Your second sentence implies that you are referring to the well known fact that in some situations, such as the GPE or the atmosphere, there is “back radiation” from a colder area which is absorbed by a warmer area within the system. The result is that the warmer body has a higher temperature than it would be without the back radiation. Clark agrees with this conclusion in his analysis of GHG emissions in the atmosphere at different pressure levels.
I can’t force you to understand. Even something simple.
The greenhouse effect is not beyond the scope of thermodynamics. You are.
Entropy.
Once you understand what that term means, you’ll understand what I’m saying.
phi, Oh one of infinite wisdom, please enlighten me, a novice with only 2 degrees in Mechanical Engineering, and let me know the truth so that I might correct the errors in my thinking to which you allude. Please provide some open source references so that I might continue to learn and achieve more complete understanding.
What really surprised me, phi, is that I was derided and eventually banned from what you would call a very alarmist blog for making the above argument.
It is a given that you would disagree, but people like Eli and Steve Mosher were just as critical.
@bdgwx
Our team tests the accuracy of thermometers using tree ring data. We have found Southern Hemisphere and low latitude thermometers to be very accurate. Thermometers located in or near the arctic, however, appear to be running hot. A serious divergence problem.
We suspect foul play by Inuit warmists.
Your team tests the accuracy of thermometers by using tree ring data as a standard. Did I read that correctly?
Clovis Weisendanger says:
“Our team tests the accuracy of thermometers using tree ring data.”
Where is your paper?
Where is your data?
Everybody can write that, Mr Weisendanger!
Are you questioning the accuracy of his arctic tree rings?
Craig T
I’m still awaiting answers to my two questions above.
And I was being sarcastic. His comments read like a troll to me, but that can be hard to judge around here.
The real question is who pays Dr Roy skeptic
Climate-science contrarian Roy Spencer’s oil-industry ties
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.facingsouth.org/2011/09/climate-science-contrarian-roy-spencers-oil-industry-ties.html&ved=2ahUKEwiT9Ze78f3mAhUGblAKHQhrDT8QFjADegQIChAL&usg=AOvVaw1jJsOrZoWsDiLUCxqHiZm_
When pseudo science collapses, when the last bullets are fired, the ultimate buoy is conspiracy.
How nice.
phi
“When pseudo science collapses, when the last bullets are fired, the ultimate buoy is conspiracy.”
Oh yes, phi! You are, paraphrasing Tamino, ‘plain right’:
*
Clovis Weisendanger says:
January 11, 2020 at 7:34 PM
@bdgwx
Our team tests the accuracy of thermometers using tree ring data. We have found Southern Hemisphere and low latitude thermometers to be very accurate. Thermometers located in or near the arctic, however, appear to be running hot. A serious divergence problem.
We suspect foul play by Inuit warmists.
*
Qu’en pensez-vous?
Regarding TSI reconstructions…A recent article by Chi Ju Wu https://www.aanda.org/articles/aa/pdf/2018/07/aa31892-17.pdf
is interesting. In Figure 14 she shows a solar activity reconstruction which has the 20th century being the highest in at least 5000 years. This would seem to be consistent with the Be-10 solar proxy results that show the 20th century being the strongest (search Berrylium-10 on Wikipedia).
@Bdgwx
Thermal arborometers. Learn some real science.
Tell me more about these ‘thermal arborometers’. How do they measure temperature? How accurate are they? Google isn’t offering up much help on this one. Is there an alternate spelling I should try? I’m always ready to learn some science especially if it is real.
@Beezwax
You remind me of the fool, Miker, always asking dumb questions.
The accuracy of thermal arborometers varies of course by species, aspect, latitude and altitude.
White birch, for example, is very accurate when growing on a west facing slope, near sea level, and north of the arctic circle.
Trembling aspen, on the other hand, is most accurate when growing on a north facing slope, at an elevation above 1700 meters, and slightly south of the arctic circle.
I would urge you to sign up for an atmospheric science class at your local community college.
What does ‘very accurate’ mean exactly? How does your team process tree ring data and arrive at a temperature? Is this a new technique? Do you have a published paper you can reference?
@Beezwax
On step at a time, friend. First learn some of the basics; proxy records, entropy, etc., before trying to understand a published paper. The commentator, Phi, might be helpful to you in this regard.
Moreover, an entry level statistics course is a minimal requirement before entering into a discussion of accuracy. Stay in your lane!
Your concern is noted and appreciated. I believe I’m ready to review any answers or materials you can provide.
@ Beezwax
There is no need for an ill informed warmist, like yourself, to sweat the details (pun intended). Suffice to know that thermal arborometers are vastly superior to their digital counterparts.
What you’ve said thusfar, which is almost nothing, does not suffice. Afterall, anyone can make these claims. Again…How does your team’s technique work? How were you able to derive a meaningful temperature from tree ring data without utilizing data from traditional temperature measurements? How accurate is your team’s results? Where is your published work?
bdgwx
“How does your teams technique work?”
Do team and technique exist?
I’m waiting since two days for papers and data describing and proving the accuracy of this genius’ work.
Hmmmh.
Yep. The evasive nature of the posts leads me to believe that there is no team and no technique. I also think the term ‘thermal arborometer’ is made up.
And yes Clovis, before this too becomes an issue, I highly suspect arborometer is a play on arboreal. Note that when I googled for it 2 days ago I got 2 nonrelevant hits. Today I get a few more the most relevant of which link back to this blog now.
Were you taught that the validity of a scientific finding is measured by the number of relevant google hits it generates? Very sad.
I pray you do not google the words flat earth.
Record Setting Ocean Warmth Continued in 2019
https://tinyurl.com/uggmemm
That is a 25e21 joules jump from 2018 to 2019.
Hmm…
Which is more likely to raise surface ocean temps…
1. Back radiation from a cooler source
2. Increased geogthermal energy from below
3. Increased ab*sor*p*tio*n of radiation from the sun
1. Impossible, violates 2lot
2. Possible but with little to no observations of vast areas of sea floor, no way to know..
3. Possible. Low ozone levels have led to increased uvb reaching the ocean for some 40 years now…
Should ozone levels continue to rise, expect rising stratospheric temps and falling ocean temps…
1. Likely. There is a lot of evidence. No, this does not violate the 2LOT. We’ve gone over this ad-nauseam. Do we need to rehash it again?
2. Unlikely. There little if any evidence that the geothermal flux which is on the order of 0.1 W/m^2 has jumped by at least one order of magnitude. Imagine the odds that an astonishing jump like that was almost perfectly coincident with the industrial revolution.
3. Unlikely. The drop in stratospheric ozone is over a part of the Earth that has a relatively small areal extent and small solar flux footprint. On the flip side ozone has increased in the troposphere over a relatively large area which also has a large solar flux footprint. Ozone also happens to be a GHG. The net effect of decreased stratosphere and increased troposphere concentration is thought to produce a net positive radiative forcing.
bdgwx,
“1. Likely. There is a lot of evidence. No, this does not violate the 2LOT. Weve gone over this ad-nauseam. Do we need to rehash it again?”
Sure. The 2Lot states that heat always transfers from a warmer object to a colder object and never the reverse without compensation.
ergo heat transfer is always from a warmer ocean to a colder atmosphere and never the reverse. Were one able to show otherwise, they would overturn the 2lot and as a bonus provide a means of free energy for all, no more fossil fuels needed… 😉
“2. Unlikely. There little if any evidence that the geothermal flux which is on the order of 0.1 W/m^2 has jumped by at least one order of magnitude. Imagine the odds that an astonishing jump like that was almost perfectly coincident with the industrial revolution.”
I agree it is unlikely, yet possible. An increase in ocean temps must come from a warmer heat source, thus geothermal and solar inputs are the two most likely sources, and solar is the most likely (although some geothermal component cannot automatically be ruled out)
“3. Unlikely. The drop in stratospheric ozone is over a part of the Earth that has a relatively small areal extent and small solar flux footprint.”
Drop in stratospheric ozone is global in extent but more pronounced over polar regions especially the south pole. A quick search online will give you many references to verify this.
” On the flip side ozone has increased in the troposphere over a relatively large area which also has a large solar flux footprint. ”
uvb interacting with ozone will raise the temp wherever this occurs, if it is not all ab*sor*bed in the stratosphere then it will raise the temp in troposphere and/or oceans wherever it is ab*sor*bed. it can penetrate 10’s of meters into the oceans and is the likely (imo) cause of rising OHC.
If the current recovery in stratospheric ozone continues, the amount of uvb reaching the surface will decline, and temp declines will follow.
NOte that the recent eruption of the Taal volcano may affect ozone levels in the short term as Dr. Ward has demonstrated the connection between eruptions and ozone depletion here: http://www.ozonedepletiontheory.info/ozone-depletion.html
(ozones ‘GHE’ effect cannot raise the temp of a warmer surface/ocean as per note 1.)
1. The key phrase here is without compensation. Other phrasing include spontaneously, without external stimuli, or by its own means. They all mean the same thing. Anyway, this is why thermal barriers can act to lower entropy without violating the 2LOT. The atmosphere is being compensated or acted on upon by something other than its own means due to the large injection of energy from the Sun. This is why a warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere do not violate the 2LOT. An increase in the efficacy of a thermal barrier can indeed lead to an increase in the equilibrium temperature (warming). The heat doesn’t come from the thermal barrier. It comes from the external injection of energy that has been trapped by the barrier. This principal plays all around you in everyday life and none of those scenarios violate the 2LOT either.
bdgwx,
please tell me what work is being done on the atmosphere to force heat flow from the atmosphere to the warmer surface.
you cannot because there is none. ergo invoking the ‘without compensation’ clause is a red herring.
increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere will cause it to emit MORE IR to space not less (at any given temp).. cooling the atmosphere.
it is impossible for the Earth to ‘trap’ heat. Natural processes always evolve to shed that heat as quickly as possible. as long as the Earth remains warmer than space it will cool, and that by the most efficient means possible…
Note: slower cooling is NOT heating…
Strawman. Heat isn’t flowing from the atmosphere to the surface. It is flowing from the Sun to the surface.
“Heat isn’t flowing from the atmosphere to the surface. It is flowing from the Sun to the surface.”
Indeed. And from the surface to the atmosphere and space and from the atmosphere to space. This is the direction of the heat flow…
Increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere (say by replacing 02 with h20 and co2) will increase the amount of IR emitted at any given temp, thus increasing the rate at which the atmosphere cools to space.
Decreasing insulation (eg ozone) between the Sun and the surface will increase the amount of solar energy reaching the surface.
If you wrapped a perfect insulator around the atmosphere it would warm and the interior of the earth would cool until they were near a homogenous temp (explains Venus..)
Do you also say that that the polar icecap warms the oceans? It slows the rate at which the ocean cools but certainly does not heat it… only the sun (and geothermal) do that..
PhilJ says:
Emission to space occurs at a lower temperature if you add CO2.
PhilJ said: Increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere (say by replacing 02 with h20 and co2) will increase the amount of IR emitted at any given temp, thus increasing the rate at which the atmosphere cools to space.
Partially correct statement. Wrong conclusion. More IR is emitted, but it is emitted in all directions with half directed towards the surface and half directed towards space. Much of this energy used to create photons is provided by the IR from the surface. This is energy that is captured by the H2O and CO2 that would have otherwise had a free escape to space.
PhilJ said:Decreasing insulation (eg ozone) between the Sun and the surface will increase the amount of solar energy reaching the surface.
Sure. And it is already accounted for. But you also have to account for the increase in the amount of surface IR reaching space. It is the net effect that matters. A rough estimate of the ratio LW-to-SW response can be found in Cionni 2011 and others is about 1.5.
3. Ozone is a thermal barrier. Even you rely upon on this fact by invoking its decrease in efficacy in the stratosphere to allow more UVB penetration upon the surface. Ozone, however, has two modes of thermal barrier response via both the shortwave and longwave portions of the EM spectrum. An increase/decrease in concentration will increase/decrease longwave egress response and decrease/increase ingress shortwave response. It is the net effect that matters most. The ingress shortwave response is smaller because the stratospheric response is heavily weighted towards the polar regions (specifically in the SH) where solar insolation is small. The egress longwave response is larger because the tropospheric response is heavily weighted towards equatorial regions where UWIR is large. Both act simultaneously though. But remember, its shortwave response is independent of the Earthly temperature whereas its longwave response is dependent upon it. Both effects must be considered and they have. Ozone cannot explain the entire magnitude of the warming. But it can explain some of it. Its contribution is already included in estimates of anthroprogenic forcing. The IPCC assigns it +0.35 W/m^2 which is about 15% of the net anthroprogenic force.
“The ingress shortwave response is smaller because the stratospheric response is heavily weighted towards the polar regions (specifically in the SH) where solar insolation is small.”
i have no idea what you are trying to say here.
the increase of UVB reaching the surface is global in scope, but more pronounced in the polar regions.
Antarctica reflects most of the UVB reaching it contributing to the destruction of ozone and the formation of the ‘hole’ above it
Open water, on the other hand, is readily penetrated by UVB as much as tens of meters deep.
your back-radiation ‘forcing’ numbers are bogus as our discussion on 2Lot above shows.
a colder atmosphere cannot heat a warmer surface.
Slower cooling is NOT warming.
What I’m trying to say is that ozone’s response in the longwave is bigger than its response in the shortwave. The net ozone effect is about +0.35 W/m^2 with +0.4 W/m^2 coming from tropospheric increase and -0.05 W/m^2 from stratospheric decrease. That not a typo. The stratospheric decrease is a negative forcing because more longwave radiation escapes than shortwave radiation is taken up.
It is your misunderstanding of the 2LOT and GHE that is bogus. The cooler atmosphere is not heating the warmer surface. The Sun is what is heating the surface. This is no different than the insulation in your home. The cooler insulation is not heating the interior. The furnace is what is heating the interior. In both cases the equilibrium temperature increases as the thermal barrier efficacy increases.
PhilJ said: Slower cooling is NOT warming.
Yes. By the most intuitive interpretation it literally is.
Consider a body that is cycling between 20C and 30C given a cyclic ingress of energy. The mean temperature is 25.0C.
Now add a thermal barrier that does not inhibit the cyclinc ingress energy flux but does inhibit the egress energy flux. The body will now cycle with a different temperature profile. Lets say after the new equilibrium is established it is now cycling between 22C and 31C. The mean temperature is now 26.5C.
The body’s mean temperature increased from 25C to 26.5C. I call that warming. What do you call it?
bdgwx,
” This is no different than the insulation in your home. The cooler insulation is not heating the interior. The furnace is what is heating the interior. In both cases the equilibrium temperature increases as the thermal barrier efficacy increases.”
The furnace is outside the insulation! increasing insulation will decrease input and vice versa..
now the question is; which is a better insulator: oxygen, co2 or h20
oxygen by far! and water of course, is the primary coolant for the surface of the Earth and for the atmosphere to space.
so tell me again how removing oxygen and replacing it with co2 and h20 is increasing insulation?
PhilJ said: The furnace is outside the insulation!
Polyatomic gas species are more transparent to SW radiation and more opaque to LW radiation. That means energy is allowed to enter the system where it is then converted into heat. These gas species have asymmetric thermal barrier properties. CO2 happens to be very asymmetric. Even ozone’s asymmetry is weighted more on the LW side than the SW side. In other words ozone’s insulating effect is stronger on the Earth side than the Sun side.
PhilJ said: now the question is; which is a better insulator: oxygen, co2 or h20
Shortwave…O2
Longwave…H2O
PhilJ said: so tell me again how removing oxygen and replacing it with co2 and h20 is increasing insulation?
Wild et al. 2013 shows the SW uptake in the atmosphere as 80 W/m^2. The LW return from GHGs to the surface is 340 W/m^2. This lopsided response is intriguing by itself but considering that O2 molecules significantly outnumbers GHG molecules is profound.
bdgwx,
“Wild et al. 2013 shows the SW uptake in the atmosphere as 80 W/m^2. The LW return from GHGs to the surface is 340 W/m^2. ”
You are comparing apples and oranges here. As you admitted above, the return from the ‘GHG’s cannot heat the warmer surface. That SW from the sun however, should any part of that 80 reach the surface it most certainly CAN heat the surface.
“Sure. And it is already accounted for.”
No, it is not. There has been no study at all that I can find that even attempts to quantify the effect of 40 years of elevated UVB exposure at the surface on temps… please share if you find one…
What I actually said is that heat does not flow from the atmosphere to the surface. It flows from the surface towards space where it interacts with a thermal barrier that traps it. The trapping of heat leads to an increase in temperature. We call that warming.
Go back to the insulation analogy. Heat does not flow from the insulation in your home to the interior. But the insulation does act as a thermal barrier that lowers the egress energy flux. The furnace converts the ingress energy flux from gas or electricity which is allowed to pass through the insulation and converts it into heat. The heat flows from the interior to the outside but is impeded by the insulation. This arrangement leads to a higher equilibrium temperature for the interior when the efficacy of the insulation is increased because the net energy flux is positive. We say that the interior warmed.
Similarly heat does not flow from the GHG layer to the surface. But the GHG layer does act as a thermal barrier that lowers the egress energy flux. The geosphere converts the ingress energy flux from the Sun which is allowed to pass through the GHG layer and converts it into heat. The heat flows from the surface to space but is impeded by the GHG layer. This arrangement leads to a higher equilibrium temperature for the surface when the efficacy of the GHG layer is increased because the net energy flux is positive. We say the surface warmed.
PhilJ,
I counted 72 studies in the IPCC AR WGI chapter 8 bibliography related to ozone radiative forcing.
Also, 80 W/m^2 is the SW that is taken up by the atmosphere and converted into heat. 160 W/m^2 is the SW that is taken up by the land and ocean and converted into heat. The combined 80 + 160 = 240 W/m^2 is the total SW that is taken up by the geosphere. That means there is actually 240 W/m^2 of mostly SW radiation that is available to be converted into heat.
If you increase the SW flux from 240 to 241 then the energy imbalance is +1.0 W/m^2.
If you decrease the the LW flux from 240 to 239 then the energy imbalance is +1.0 W/m^2.
In either case the Earth will warm until a new equilibrium is established and the energy balance returns to zero.
PhilJ,
Perhaps I’m not articulating a crucial point very well. There are two
System 1 includes the Sun, Earth, and space in between. No external mass or energy flows are entering the system. This system is isolated (close enough anyway). The 2LOT applies. Entropy increases. Heat flows from the warmer Sun to the cooler Earth.
System 2 includes the Earth and only the Earth. An external energy flow is entering the system. This system is NOT isolated. The 2LOT does NOT apply. Entropy is decreasing. Heat flows from a cooler body to a warmer body.
Either system is fine to use. I happen to be using the interpretation provided by system 1 in my posts. That’s why I say heat is flowing from the Sun to the surface of Earth. But the interpretation from system 2 is equally valid. So for those who are using that interpretation they can rightly claim that heat is flowing from cooler to warmer which does not violate the 2LOT because of the ever important compensation clause.
Pay particular attention to the most important aspect of system 2…the external energy. If you were to remove that then the system would be isolated, entropy would increase, heat would flow from warm to cool, and the GHE would cease. So even in system 2 the Sun is crucial.
bdgwx,
“I counted 72 studies in the IPCC AR WGI chapter 8 bibliography related to ozone radiative forcing.”
and that is not what I asked for. None of those even attempts to quantify the effect of increased uvb exposure on surface temps.
by your own admission, it is SW from the sun that heats the surface. How then can an increase in SW uvb reaching the surface NOT be considered for a cause of increasing temps?
“In either case the Earth will warm until a new equilibrium is established and the energy balance returns to zero.”
and this is also incorrect. again, as per 2lot, any new steady state must have more energy output from the earth than input from the sun until it has cooled to the state of the moon or colder…. you cannot stop entropy from increasing… thus the earth has cooled for 4 billion years despite energy input from the sun, and will continue to cool…
“Similarly heat does not flow from the GHG layer to the surface. But the GHG layer does act as a thermal barrier that lowers the egress energy flux”
on the contrary. so called ‘ghg’s INCREASE the energy flux from the atmosphere to space,cooling the atmosphere. In fact the majority of IR exiting to space comes from h20 in the upper troposphere/tropopause…
“The heat flows from the surface to space but is impeded by the GHG layer”
hmm, it would seem to me that the heat flows from the surface to the atmosphere and space and that the ‘ghg’s cause heat to flow from the atmosphere to space cooling the atmosphere…
increasing the emissivity of the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to cool to space more quickly…
observed reduced drag on satelites is evidence that the TOA is contracting…
if the volume of the atmosphere is contracting then temp must be falling or pressure increasing or some combination thereof…
“What I actually said is that heat does not flow from the atmosphere to the surface. It flows from the surface towards space where it interacts with a thermal barrier that traps it”
except that the atmosphere does not ‘trap’ heat. Neither can it. It sheds that heat in the most effecient means possible as all natural processes do.. by conduction, convection and radiation…
the Earth will continue to cool as entropy dictates.. short term fluctuations due to variable solar input notwithstanding
PhilJ said: and that is not what I asked for. None of those even attempts to quantify the effect of increased uvb exposure on surface temps.
Yes. They most certainly do.
PhilJ said: by your own admission, it is SW from the sun that heats the surface. How then can an increase in SW uvb reaching the surface NOT be considered for a cause of increasing temps?
It is considered. If you increase SW flux it will produce a positive radiative forcing on the surface. I never said it wouldn’t.
PhilJ said: and this is also incorrect. again, as per 2lot, any new steady state must have more energy output from the earth than input from the sun until it has cooled to the state of the moon or colder. you cannot stop entropy from increasing thus the earth has cooled for 4 billion years despite energy input from the sun, and will continue to cool
No. Steady state requires that input and output energy fluxes be balanced.
And you most certainly can stop entropy from increasing. My refigerator has no problem doing it. In fact my refrigerator actually makes entropy decrease.
No. Even if the Sun does not increase in luminosity and radioactive decay within the Earth ceases and all other things remained equal the surface will not continue to cool. Why? Because input and output energy are balanced (roughly anyway).
PhilJ said: on the contrary. so called ghgs INCREASE the energy flux from the atmosphere to space,cooling the atmosphere. In fact the majority of IR exiting to space comes from h20 in the upper troposphere/tropopause
No. GHGs decrease the energy flux from the surface to space. This has been experimentally proven time and time again over the last 170 years. And the detection of water vapor in the atmosphere by space based radiometers is proof that H2O decreases this flux.
And while GHGs do provide an avenue by which the atmosphere can radiate to space in the IR they also provide an avenue by which the atmosphere can capture IR from the surface.
PhilJ said: the Earth will continue to cool as entropy dictates
No it won’t. The Earth is not an isolated system. The 2LOT does not dictate that entropy must increase within Earth system or that it must cool. Don’t forget about that all important compensation clause!
PhilJ said: and that is not what I asked for. None of those even attempts to quantify the effect of increased uvb exposure on surface temps.
bdgwx: “Yes. They most certainly do.”
I have found many papers that examine the effect of increased uvb exposure on living organisms, but none that examine its effect on surface/ocean temps..
if you can cite one that does I would be grateful. If you cannot you should stop making such an assertion…
bdgwx: “No. Steady state requires that input and output energy fluxes be balanced.”
indeed, thus for a steady state temp at the surface, it must shed all the heat generated by incoming solar AND that which it receives from the interior…
of course a true steady state will not be reached until the interior has finished cooling and the planet is a solid rock warmed only by the sun… mercury would be a good example, and the Moon would be a good proxy for the Earth when it reaches this state (granted that the Moon is still cooling but the difference between now and when its core is no longer molten is arguably insignificant)
bdgwx: “No. GHGs decrease the energy flux from the surface to space”
you are arguing against something I didnt say.. I said: “on the contrary. so called ghgs INCREASE the energy flux from the atmosphere to space,cooling the atmosphere”
If you agree, then we can look at how that affects the transfer of heat from the surface to the atmosphere and space…
bdgwx: “No it won’t. The Earth is not an isolated system. The 2LOT does not dictate that entropy must increase within Earth system or that it must cool”
the universe is an isolated system, ergo the 2LOT applies everywhere and yes, as long as the space around it is cooler than the Earth, it must continue to cool, until it is a solid dead rock warmed only by the sun…
PhilJ, you’re going to have to figure out how my refrigerator and HVAC in my home can lower entropy and move heat from a cool body to warm body. You could just accept the compensation clause and the fact that these system are not isolated, but I’m guessing that is not going to convince you is it?
bdgwx,
“PhilJ, you’re going to have to figure out how my refrigerator and HVAC in my home can lower entropy and move heat from a cool body to warm body. You could just accept the compensation clause and the fact that these system are not isolated, but I’m guessing that is not going to convince you is it?”
ha, nice dodge. As you well know, both your refrigerator and your air conditioner INCREASE the entropy of the universe..
The compensating work being done by the compressor on the coolant of course allows one to pump heat from the colder fridge, but the compressor itself, not being 100% effecient also generates waste heat.
You keep mentioning the compensation clause as if that allows one to willy nilly ignore the 2LOT.
If there is work being done to compensate for the transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the surface please describe this mechanism….
It’s not a dodge. Entropy can be lowered in a system as long as the system has a influx of energy from the outside. The Earth is receiving energy from the outside via the Sun. The work or compensation here is being done by photons. That is not ignoring the 2LOT because entropy is still increasing within the solar system. The Sun generates a LOT of waste heat.
“The work or compensation here is being done by photons.”
Typical case.
Photons do not work in the sense of thermodynamics, they are a medium for heat transfer.
It is good to insist on the respect of the first law of thermodynamics, it would be better to do it within the framework of this science and therefore to abandon at the same time an absurd notion like thermal forcing and avoid the use of unsound terms like back radiations or DWIR.
Your conception of the greenhouse effect is no more correct than that of those who forget the first law. The difference is that you defend a pseudo-science that costs billions and perverted our relationship to knowledge.
So now we’re full circle back to a change in energy flux and IR radiation emitted from above and propagating down are both somehow absurd? That is the epitome of ignoring the 1LOT.
And just to be clear…my conception of how the GHE works is the capture of UWIR from the surface and either thermalizing it or redirecting a portion back toward the surface via DWIR. In common vernacular we call this trapping of heat because had the GHG layer not been there then the UWIR would have had a free escape to space.
PhilJ/phi,
I’m curious…how do you think radiometers in space detect water vapor in the atmosphere?
DWIR is not a flux in the sense of classical thermodynamics. It’s just irradiance.
The only flux is thermal and it goes from hot to cold. It obviously depends on the irradiance of the atmosphere.
You cannot understand the problem if you continue to use concepts which do not conform to classical thermodynamics.
“how do you think radiometers in space detect water vapor in the atmosphere?”
By measuring the only detectable macroscopic flux which is a heat flux and by calculating water vapor irradiance taking into account the instrument temperature.
DWIR is most certainly a flux in every sense. It is comprised of real photons with real energies that cannot be ignored.
The way radiometers detect water vapor is via the same mechanism that drives the GHE. Specifically it detects the flux between about 6.0 and 7.5 um. Both the surface and WV are emitting in this band. The surface emits strongly because it is much warmer. The WV emits weakly because it is much cooler. And since WV is a GHG that is active in this band it will capture these surface photons and either thermalize them or use them to create new photons that get split between upward and downward trajectories. Either way less IR flux is allowed to escape into space as WV increases. The radiometer sees LESS flux with MORE water vapor. The WV is shadowing the stronger surface flux. If the core process that drives the GHE were not real then we would not be able to track WV via space based instruments.
I can’t help you. What you write is gibberish. Atmosphere is not a pool table.
Start by reading a thermodynamics textbook.
It may be gibberish to you, but that is the way things work and it is accepted by nearly all scientists. Specifically GHGs emit DWIR that redirects some of the energy back toward the surface that would have otherwise had a free escape to space. You cannot ignore this energy. If a body experiences a decrease in egress energy flux without a corresponding decrease in ingress energy flux then the body will accumulate energy and warm in proportion to its specific heat capacity. And we know GHGs block UWIR thus yielding a lower flux out to space because it is tested and utilized by observational meteorology every day by radiometers in space. Our radiometers even have channels that exploit CO2’s active bands. We KNOW without a shadow of a doubt that the GHE is real. What isn’t so well known is what the magnitude of the effect is given the large uncertainties in various feedbacks.
The greenhouse effect is a thermodynamic phenomenon. It is not possible to discuss it if you stubbornly refuse to use the vocabulary and concepts of this science.
In thermodynamics, the flows are of heat and it is the laws related to entropy that govern the reactions of the system to any disturbance.
You’re not talking about heat.
You’re not talking about entropy.
You’re speaking the language of St. Greta’s Abbey.
Hi Phi!
Here’s Trenberths energy diagram (https://tinyurl.com/yanfhmdf) converted to heat for you:
Using W/m^2:
Solar to Atmosphere: 77.1 – 0 = 77.1
Solar to Surface: 163.3 – 0 = 163.3
Surface to Space: 40.1 – 0 = 40.1
Surface to Atmosphere: 17.8 + 18.4 + 86.4 = 122.6
Radiation: 398.2 – 40.1 – 340.3 = 17.8
Thermals (net): 18.4
Latent Heat (net): 86.4
Atmosphere to Space: 239.9 – 40.1 – 0 = 199.8
Atmosphere in: 122.6 + 77.1 = 199.7
Surface out: 122.6 + 40.1 = 162.7
Surface in: 163.3
Surface surplus: 0.6 (means avg temp must rise).
Dont get hung up on the decimals, they are approximations.
Svante,
Yes it’s good. In graphic form : https://zupimages.net/up/20/04/24sb.jpg
“Dont get hung up on the decimals, they are approximations.”
Yes indeed, 0.6 is also decimal.
Yes, we know we have a surplus becauses temperatures are going up.
It’s the only way to have a long term increase.
The only observable long-term global warming is about 0.015°C per decade since the 17th century.
https://zupimages.net/up/19/51/xr18.png
It is low and certainly not CO2 related.
As for the behaviour of St. Greta’s Abbey temperature indices, it can be demystified in two more graphs:
https://zupimages.net/up/20/03/wu78.png
https://www.zupimages.net/up/19/47/dyn5.png
Heat and energy are intimately linked. The Earth’s energy budget is imbalanced. That’s why the planet is warming. Entropy can decrease within the geosphere without violating the 2LOT because the geosphere is not an isolated system.
OHC is increasing at a rate of 0.6 W/m^2.
The surface warming rate since 1960 is about 0.2C/decade.
Tree ring derived temperature does not match instrumental temperature after 1960. Even the scientists that pioneered these MXD models say they don’t work after 1960. Claiming otherwise is the epitome of an extraordinary claim. It requires us to believe instrumental temperatures were right from 1881-1940 but wrong after that. That is the opposite of believable.
bdgwx,
Thermodynamics : I don’t see what you are trying to demonstrate.
OHC : I’ll let you believe what you want. We’ll talk about it again when you have credible means of measuring this value.
The surface warming rate since 1960 is about 0.2C/decade.
It is more likely 0.1C/decade and only since 1980 (See TLT calibrated for surface).
Tree ring derived temperature does not match instrumental temperature after 1960.
For Yamal the divergence appears around 1989 but in general it would be more between 1900 and 1950.
Even the scientists that pioneered these MXD models say they dont work after 1960.
They only assume but don’t prove anything.
Claiming otherwise is the epitome of an extraordinary claim.
No, because unlike Briffa and his colleagues, I bring evidence to support what I say.
Here’s the latest on the OHC:
https://tinyurl.com/skkyegb
https://tinyurl.com/sceqmkk
https://tinyurl.com/tbtb57z
Hilarious.
10 years at 0.6 W/m2 over the ocean gives a warming of 0.01 K.
And you think we’re able of measuring this ???????
Cheng publishes an error for 2019 OHC of about 9 ZJ whereas NOAA publishes about 4 ZJ. This is equivalent to about 0.0032K and 0.0014K respectively.
BTW…I find that kind of incredulity ironic considering that you are arguing that temperatures derived from a proxy using a model calibrated from instrumental data over a period that yields about 0.1C of error for a global mean is somehow more accurate than that same instrumental data that has an error of about 0.05C for a present day global mean.
bdgwx,
OHC: these values seem credible to you ???
We would know the global temperature of the oceans at around 2/1000 K ???
What a joke !!!
MXD and T: you confuse the measurement error of a temperature with biases (https://zupimages.net/up/20/03/wu78.png).
phi, can you post a link to published research showing that MXD derived global temperature anomalies have an error less than 0.05C and are immune from biases that might cause them to diverge from the instrumental temperature record?
phi, if think Cheng’s work (which has been replicated by NOAA) is a joke then I’m sure you can provide a link to publish research showing a margin error substantially higher than what Cheng publishes. Can you provide that link so that we can review it?
MXD: as I already told you, the only way to assess the ability of MXD or instrumental indices to account for the evolution of global warming is to analyze the consistency of a maximum of independent candidates between them. I gave you examples and tracks. What do you have ?
OHC: It is extraordinary to claim to be able to measure the global temperature of the oceans with an accuracy of 0.002 K. This extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof. Where is it ?
If there was a jail for warmists, and there should be, you would be locked up for breaking the 2nd law.
I have some knowledge of dendrochronology and statistics, and am intrigued to see your work describing the species selection, spatial coverage, methods and results (and caveats) that lead you to believe that tree rings in the Northern Hemisphere are more accurate than the instrunental record of temperature.
Immediately providing links will instantly dispell the implied criticism above that you are nothing but an attention-seeking troll. Please shock those smug alarmists by substantiating the interesting claims you have made.
Miker, Beezwax, and Barry – a parade of fools. And the latest thinks he is an expert in dendrochronology!
From Wikipedia:
The divergence problem is an anomaly from the field of dendroclimatology, the study of past climate through observations of old trees, primarily the properties of their annual growth rings. It is the disagreement between the temperatures measured by the thermometers (instrumental temperatures) and the temperatures reconstructed from the latewood densities or, in some cases, widths of tree rings in the far northern forests.
While the thermometer records indicate a substantial late 20th century warming trend, many tree rings from such sites do not display a corresponding change in their maximum latewood density. In some studies this issue has also been found with tree ring width.[2] A temperature trend extracted from tree rings alone would not show any substantial warming since the 1950s. The temperature graphs calculated in these two ways thus “diverge” from one another, which is the origin of the term.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergence_problem
Trees are truth tellers, Barry. The problem is with the the instruments.
Here is the other 80% of the wiki that Clovis cherry picked from.
“Discovery
The problem of changing response of some tree ring proxies to recent climate changes was identified inAlaskabyTaubes 1995andJacoby & d’Arrigo 1995. Tree ring specialistKeith Briffa’s February 1998 study showed that this problem was more widespread at high northern latitudes, and warned that it had to be taken into account to avoid overestimating past temperatures.[3]
Importance
The deviation of some tree ring proxy measurements from the instrumental record since the 1950s raises the question of the reliability of tree ring proxies in the period before theinstrumental temperature record. The wide geographic and temporal distribution of well-preserved trees, the solid physical, chemical, and biological basis for their use, and their annual discrimination makedendrochronologyparticularly important in pre-instrumental climate reconstructions. Tree ring proxies are essentially consistent with otherproxy measurementsfor the period 16001950. Before around AD 1600, the uncertainty of temperature reconstructions rises due to the relative paucity of data sets and their limited geographic distribution. As of 2006, these uncertainties were considered too great to allow conclusion on whether the tree ring record diverges from other proxies during this period.[4]In more recent studies evidence suggested that the divergence is caused by human activities, and so confined to the recent past, but use of affected proxies can lead to overestimation of past temperatures, understating the current warming trend.[2]
Possible explanations
The explanation for the divergence problem is still unclear, but is likely to represent the impact of some other climatic variable that is important to modern northern hemisphere forests but not significant before the 1950s. Rosanne D’Arrigo, senior research scientist at theTree Ring LabatColumbia University’sLamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, hypothesises that “beyond a certain threshold level of temperature the trees may become more stressed physiologically, especially if moisture availability does not increase at the same time.” Signs suggestive of such stress are visible from space, where satellite pictures show “evidence of browning in some northern vegetation despite recent warming.”[5]
Other possible explanations include that the response to recent rapidglobal warmingmight be delayed ornonlinearin some fashion. The divergence might represent changes to other climatic variables to which tree rings are sensitive, such as delayed snowmelt and changes in seasonality. Growth rates could depend more on annual maximum or minimum temperatures, especially in temperature limited growth regions (i.e. high latitudes and altitudes). Another possible explanation isglobal dimmingdue to atmosphericaerosols.[2]
In 2012, Brienen et al. proposed that the divergence problem was largely an artifact of sampling large living trees.[6]”
p.s. What has happened to Clovis’s research team?
I’m well familiar with the ‘divergence problem’, Clovis. That’s old news. What’s novel is your claim that the tree-rings have better fidelity than the instrumental record of late 20th century Northern hemispheric temperature evolution.
“Our team tests the accuracy of thermometers using tree ring data…”
No you haven’t. You’re full of it. Begone, troll.
“…tree-rings have better fidelity than the instrumental record of late 20th century Northern hemispheric temperature evolution.”
Yes, of course, it’s been proven:
https://zupimages.net/up/19/48/soa3.png
Phi,
No, UAH NH land has a trend of 0.19C since 1979.
https://tinyurl.com/y62sq3xo
Clearly, the MXD trees diverge from the NH temperature record, whether satellite or surface.
Your chart is BS. I checked against the one from climate audit you posted 4 years ago with the same data sets and you’re just fudging the baselines (obviously) and who knows what elese to get the picture you want. Even the 2013 MXD record is different in both charts, and they should be exactly the same.
Here’s your original for interested parties to compare and see what fudging you’ve been up to.
http://www.skyfall.fr/wp-content/2014/12/polar2.png
How about the MXD record hitting 2C in the in the 1920s in the recent chart, but not even hitting 1.5C in your original?
I don’t care if you’re lying to other people. That’s ordinary. The more interesting question is whether you are lying to yourself.
Apparently, you don’t know what proxies are. They have to be calibrated (including TLTs) and I used two different techniques in these two graphs, hence the differences.
The last one is better.
How exactly are you calibrating MXD data to arrive at a temperature anomaly?
By the ratio of the standard deviations of the detrended series.
Let me be more precise…how are you calibrating maximum latewood density chronologies to produce a standardized temperature anomaly?
I mainly answered you. It’s up to you to specify. Think carefully and start by looking at the period covered and at the behavior of the curve.
No. I want to know how you turned dimensionless MXD chronologies into units of temperature (K). What model are you using to do that? Note that I’m not asking, at least not yet, how you stitched the series to the Had.RUT and UAH data.
I already told you, by the ratio of the standard deviations of the detrended series.
V ‘= V * sigmaTdt / sigmaVdt
For the particular case of the 20th century, there is no correction for the age (RCS method), there is only about 10% loss of density in the 20 central rings. The behavior of MXD is very different from that of TRW.
The main difficulty is to eliminate selection bias. For the 20th century, it’s easy: the series are standardized on the basis 1951 to 1980 before being aggregated.
How do you map the behavior of tree ring densities to a temperature though? How does it differ from the typical technique of using instrumental temperature records?
Is that equation your model that does the mapping? If so what are V and T in your model? Where do those inputs come from?
Do you have a published paper that describes your method in detail?
Your questions are weird.
A temperature proxy is calibrated on instrumental temperatures.
The main points are shown on the graph : https://zupimages.net/up/19/48/soa3.png
I have given you all further information.
What are you looking for ?
Let me ask in another way. Are you working with raw latewood density chronologies or are you working from already computed temperature anomalies like what Briffa et al. provides? What is the source of data you used to generate the blue Proxy MXD line in your graph?
The reason I’m asking is because Briffa et al calibrate their proxy models using instrumental temperature records. For example, Briffa 98 uses instrumental records from 1881 to 1940 as an input into the principal component analysis based model. Therefore Briffa MXD derives temperatures have less fidelity than the instrumental record because the instrumental record is used as a standard by much the proxy is calibrated.
I use the raw data (file polar.mxd) :
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/papers/briffa2013qsr/raw.zip
Just because you calibrate a proxy on instrumental data does not mean that the result is less reliable than the instrumental data. Especially if you calibrate on the basis of high frequency, it may well be that the proxy is more reliable in low frequency than the reference data.
In this particular case, this is what the TLT proxy seems to confirm.
I am definitely willing to consider your claim that a proxy can have high fidelity at low frequency. I can intuitively envision how that might be the case. But is it any better than low frequency instrumental data? That needs to be established.
But the point about divergence is still a pesky one. Afterall if the instrumental data from 1881-1940 was good enough to calibrate the MXD model then you have to ask why data after 1940 is not as useful in calibrating the model. I think you have two possibilities…either the instrumental data after 1940 is not as good or the MXD chronologies sensitivity to temperatures changed in some way. I believe your argument is for the former and Briffa et al. argue for the later. Correct?
The divergence is related to low frequencies, so there is a priori no problem to calibrate at high frequency even during the period of divergence.
The observation of a divergence does not alone make it possible to affirm that it is MXD or instruments that are deficient.
The target is the change in regional temperature. Neither MXD nor thermometers allow direct measurement of this variable. Each of these means has its strengths and its weaknesses.
The main advantage of MXD is that they are sensitive to changes in temperature outside areas affected by human activity. Their disadvantage is that they are potentially affected by parameters other than temperature.
Hence the need to use as many sources as possible and examine which series are consistent with each other. The TLT proxy is consistent with MXD and inconsistent with surface thermometers. This observation indicates that it is rather the instrumental measures that are problematic.
The Wiki referred to above about the divergence problem is out of date as the last reference is to papers in 2012.
In 2013 Briffa et al. published a significant and detailed paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113001406) that concluded the following (Concluding remarks page 23).
“The long-timescale information contained in these reconstructions remains the least reliable component of their total variance. However, there is no evidence of divergence, i.e. any late 20th century underperformance in tree productivity compared to that expected on the basis of increasing summer temperature (Briffa et al., 1998; D’Arrigo et al., 2008; Esper et al., 2009). We have not investigated the influence of sample elevation on the absolute magnitude of tree growth or made any allowance for such differences in our analysis, but this may not be a very significant factor (Briffa et al., 1996).
We also recognise that as temperatures have risen in this area during the 20th century, what were comparatively slow-growing near-timberline trees, possibly with low foliage density, might respond not just directly by increasing net productivity but also by increasing their needle mass, so enhancing their capacity to produce increasingly large amounts of growth material for the same temperature change. Persistent warming might also lead to other growth-promoting changes in the environment (e.g. increased soil mineralisation, nutrient recycling, or promotion of mycorrhizal activity) that could also conceivably promote tree growth beyond the degree expected as a linear response to the degree of warming. However, if this were true of the 20th century it would presumably also be true for earlier warm periods. Specific study of these issues in Yamalia will require further updated tree samples and continual monitoring of detailed climate and other environmental factors.
We end with the usual caveat that our interpretation of past tree growth changes in terms of varying summer temperatures relies on the assumption of uniformitarianism: that the same character and degree of association we observe now between tree growth and 20th century climate holds true throughout the length of our reconstructions and that no confounding factors have interfered with this relationship if the reconstructions are to be valid, within estimated uncertainty, for the last two millennia.”
Also particularly pertinent is Figure 13 on page 22.
“Proven!”
With this chart I made!
FFS.
Sure, some people will fall for this stuff, but don’t try it on here.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/confirmation-of-phis-reconstruction
Troll?
You do not know anything about me or the outstanding team I work with, nor anything about the field of arborometry. This does not stop you from belittling our accomplishments, does it?
The jealous are troublesome to others, but a torment to themselves.
– William Penn
One of the things that make the ‘skeptic’ cause wither day by day is the proliferation of trolls and cranks among their ranks.
Good on you, Clovis. You are far less entertaining and a bit more useful than you know. Please continue with your inane condescension.
Clovis, if you are who you say you are then now is the time to lay your cards on the table.
I’ll ask the same question I just asked phi…how are you calibrating maximum latewood density chronologies to produce a standardized temperature anomaly?
I am not obligated to answer the questions of a nosy warmist.
The word is “obliged”.
“Obligated” is a crass Yank invention.
Nosy warmists and now, an illiterate limey. I suppose it comes with the territory.
We have here a Yank who believes incorrectly that everyone else in the world who speaks English is a Brit. The fact that he even admits to another country is progress I suppose from someone who believes “world series” applies to their baseball final.
Nevertheless, the language is “English”, not “American”, so the Brits get to decide what is correct and what is not. Next you’ll try to assert that “buoy” has two syllables, that there is no such thing as a ‘fortnight’, and that “I could care less” makes logical sense.
The Brits would be speaking German if not for us Yanks. So no, they do not get to decide what is correct and what is not.
Buoy has two syllables, french fries are not chips, and fortnight should be removed from the dictionary. I could care less if you disagree.
You could care less? Thanks for letting me know you care so much.
Interesting that you you have a German surname. With you and Trump, it seems they did take over the US.
Yes, I am a caring person, and do not want our great nation to be overrun by socialists – the fate of Germany prior to WW2.
Pity your country has been overrun by Nazis.
You probably unthinkingly believe Nazism is actually socialism because they chose to include the word “Socialist” in their title. The Nazis were an Ultra-RIGHT-wing organisation. Just like Herr Trumpler and his band of thugs.
Herr Trumpler?
I can understand how his lack of tact might be off-putting to the sensitive, but I am sure you will agree that this shortcoming is more than offset by his devotion to truth, commitment to fighting corruption.
Truth?? Fighting corruption?? Haha – you are hilarious!
His administration IS corruption personified.
It seems his approach to governance has rubbed you the wrong way. Try to be objective and focus on the message, not the messenger.
The message is more diabolical than the messenger, who is just an unintelligent stooge.
I fear that you are delusional.
Trump already stands shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Lincoln and Washington. A new face on Mt. Rushmore?
Now THAT is delusion.
I see you have not yet managed to locate the Reply button. Learning difficulties?
For real, Midas. I encourage you to sign the petition.
https://www.change.org/p/donald-trump-put-donald-trump-s-face-on-mount-rushmore
Here is your model for the monument:
https://cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161118080147-01-golden-pheasant-trump-restricted-exlarge-169.jpg
Do you even understand the concept of a “Reply” button”?
Where are the January 2020 results?
Ditto
Hello, are you interested in a better backlink indexer? We just left the beta testing phase on the GSA forum and the feedback is great. The old link indexers have been useless for a while. We do not operate in the same way.
We are efficient for Google, Yandex and Bing. We are the only ones to offer unlimited formulas, number of submissions and number of URLs.
On request we can have the service tested for 24 hours :
http://www.johnussery.com/gbook/go.php?url=http://www.miniurlz.com/LP-IN2
Pass: G8D2EZ9P3
I tell you see you soon
Hello mates, its impressive article on the topic of cultureand fully
explained, keep it up all the time.
beliberdetsonkapets https://www.samsung.com
Hi, after reading this remarkable paragraph i am also delighted to share my experience here with mates.