Slashdot Mirror

That's true, warmer air is moister which traps more heat, which is a positive feedback. But it can also result in more cloud formation, increasing albedo and reflecting more heat, which is a negative feedback. Yet clouds can reflect heat back down again too, and the amount varies with altitude.

There's a lot we don't know about cloud formation under those conditions, so a lot of uncertainty as to degree. Current thinking is that net feedback is somewhat positive. Bottom line: It's complicated.

Nice rant. Except you missed the fact that "the precipitation deficit during the drought was dominated by natural variability" and not CO2-based climate change.

First off, the drought was a result of natural variation. And anyone that checks reservoir levels today will find were at about the historical average, overall. If we had a drought - it's gone.

The real cause of the fires was the handwringing and NIMBY Gaia worshipers throwing up legal roadblocks to PG&E cutting back trees near power lines.

This was a manufactured (in that environmentalists fought against accepted standards for power line clearance) disaster that is being blamed on a non-event (in that there was no climate-change drive to the drought).

Your article contradicts what you're saying: https://journals.ametsoc.org/n...

I guess you're from the Church Of Ignorance, aren't you?

I keep seeing articles that say these things are recorded... so... are we going to get a pointer to those records or what? Or are we "allowed" to see this data of "flooded cities" and "environmental impacts" or is Slashdot the mouth piece of the New Catholic Church where all the relevant data is locked up behind the doors where only the clergy may access?

The "Report" being linked in the "Article" that Slashdot "Links to" has no relevant data to look at, no historical comparative analysis, no names of places being "disastered". It only mentions past events like Hurricanes, the ever favorite go-to the global warming apocalypse is upon as though hurricanes of great devastation never happened before.

Science has become an Institutionalized Church just like what has happened to the religions. Any facts or data that calls a certain agenda into question becomes marginalized.

The source of Tyranny is always from the people, places, or ideas you are NOT allowed to criticize or question and no matter how many facts are involved.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/d...

According to this journal only 52% of Climate Scientists, Meteorologists and Atmospheric Scientists believe that GW is mostly human. 10% believe it is a combination of humans and natural, 5% natural 20% believe data is insufficient to make the call, 1% don't know the cause, 7% do not sure if GW is happening, & 4% believe that GW is not happening at all.

This results in 2/3rds of Scientists believing that GW is at least happening with only a little over 1/2 of them being sure it is caused by Human efforts with just under 1/2 of those that believe GW is happening as being either a mix of human and natural or just natural.

And judging by Sciences past, I am going to stay suspicious. I don't "disbelieve" that GW is happening that seems fairly clear, but I definitely "disbelieve" these projections as I have yet to see a single one come true and just like in this article there is "conveniently" no data attached. I want a smoking gun folks, not more bluster, fear mongering, or chatter that does not have links to data.

you can choose to live a life not lived in fear

Well I think you're confounding finding with "fear". Science isn't here to make us feel great or feel fear, it is what it is. The total volumetric thermal energy in the atmosphere is increasing. The amount of energy that strikes the Earth from the Sun and reflects back into space is decreasing. This isn't a new feature, Example This increase was observed in 1949. The first order derivative of that change has been a positive one over the course of the last one hundred years and if the rate of change continues it will lead to a total average energy increase in the atmosphere of two degrees Celsius.

We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago

We do see it. Heat waves that hit the middle east, rising sea levels, heat waves in Australia, receding ice shelf, decreased insect populations, ever increasing invasion of spices into regions where previous temperatures would not have allowed them to go. Heck I distinctly remember a year in December where I slapped a mosquito off my arm. It's just difficult to pinpoint any one particular affect of increasing temperatures because all of them are slow to see.

An especially clear example of this is todays NYT feature on Scary Global Warming

I distinctly remember the NYT graph, however it does give range and if you do look over at the website that provided data you'll see that there's a ton of assumptions that we could sit here for days picking apart. My particular region shows an increase anywhere between (min) 8 days and (max) 40 days of 90+ temperatures. But looking at the actual site that provided the data, you'll get a sense that it is indeed conjecture based on methods they feel are appropriate. But that doesn't negate the fact that temperatures will increase even in conservative readings of their data. Again, that's not a fear thing, that's a these are the numbers, this is what the trend looks like, deal with how you so please. But you do have to realize that NYT is obviously going to place some sort of "point" to their story.

We were supposed to see that exponential growth in heating many years ago, maybe even a decade at at this point

We are seeing it. For example, in my area falling numbers within wheat yields have impacted to a small degree acre to pound of flour numbers. Nothing massive here, maybe about 0.2% decrease in yields. However, thinking in terms of joules of energy versus the multitude of acres of wheat, it would take a significant increase in atmospheric energy to change the massive number of acres of wheat to change a 0.1% much less a 0.2%. Again, in the end product flour, it's difficult to see that translation because it's spread all over the place. And it is very, very important that I point out that FN is just one measure and not the end all be all of any debate. So I'm not saying that "Ah-Ha! I got'cha!" All I am saying is that it is "interesting" to see that. But I think that's also the insidious part of climate change is that it can change factors ever so slightly because the effect of climate are very wide ranging. So while exponential energy accumulation may not always in turn evolve into full on heat waves, it can also deposit the excess energy in other ways that in aggregate are near impossible to foresee, but they happen none-the-less.

I would LOVE to see a serious discussion on climate at some point

I'm not sold on that point. I feel you've made your mind up about the debate and rather just yell at how people are wrong rather than show where they are wrong. I'm even typing this and wondering what the hell is the point here con

Let's look at the other end. Any chance he included this 1989 study showing an increase of 1.6 C for the instantaneous doubling case and 0.7C for the transient forcing case? No way. Low estimate in the past. Doesn't fit the narrative.

How about this one from 1967 with an estimate of 2.3C for a doubling of CO2. Low estimate in the past? No good.

How about this one from 1997 which suggests sensitivity may be as small as 0.3–0.5C for a doubling of CO2, Better exclude that one!

etc etc etc. If you select studies from the past with higher sensitivities and more recent ones with lower sensitivity then you can show a trend towards lower sensitivity. Not to mention the fact that many of his sources aren't from the scientific literature at all but rather just references to other blogers. That's why you should look to the literature to understand the science rather than some trickster on the internet.

Followed by carefully selecting 1 study that presents your narrative.

It only took the very first result from 2018 on google scholar to give the lie to your assertion that "ECS seems to be trending downward"

mentioning you cited literature to brush off my argument, when my argument is literally a graph of dozens of peer reviewed studies

Yes, but apparently excluding results that don't support the narrative. But let's go down the list of results from 2018:

The first, as we mentioned earlier, is right in line with studies from 50 years ago. Better exclude it from the ironically named "No tricks zone"..

The second suggests that century-scale feedbacks can alter the climate sensitivity, so some lower estimates that rely on satellite data may be underestimating. That doesn't support the narrative. Better exclude it.

The third and fourth look at crop yields and forest growth for different sensitivities. No points either way. But the fifth finds a central figure of 3.2K with a range of (1.58.1K). Uh oh. 8K on the high end! That's not good. Better exclude it.

It's not until the sixth when we find a study with a lower estimate.

At an 800,000 year scale, a "sudden" change takes thousands of years. We have reduced that to decades

Citation needed. Because the fact is we have no data supporting that claim. We can only see the past in resolution of hundreds or thousands of years, and we DO have data showing the same kind of "sudden" changes happening now as have happened just 80 years ago (check this graph, for instance).

If we had 1000s of years to slowly migrate our populations around, we wouldn't even notice, and the same is largely true of the rest of nature.

Thankfully, our ability to migrate and mitigate has increased 100 times what it was, just 100 years ago. 100 years ago, airplane travel was non-existent, the car was a novel thing, and coal boats were still slowly replacing sailing ships. Life has changed in 100 years, and IF we needed to relocate a few million people in 100 years, it would be trivial to do so. Not that we need to, however; Holgate's 2007 paper shows a slowing sea level rise, and Frederikse's 2018 paper confirms Holgate's conclusions. It's not even staying linear in increase, it's slowing down.

you clearly left my claim untouched, that the energy imbalance is badly modelled.

Read the fucking executive summary again:

There is very high confidence that models reproduce the general features of the global-scale annual mean surface temperature increase over the historical period, including the more rapid warming in the second half of the 20th century

The models sure as shit aren't perfect, it's not like we can predict the rainfall in a month. But they are not badly modeled.

But hey, thank you for actually doing the minimal amount of footwork to make a claim. Page 749. 8 papers had to deal with clouds. And you're not wrong, the IPCC said it themselves in the executive summary:

The simulation of clouds in climate models remains challenging.
There is very high confidence that uncertainties in cloud processes
explain much of the spread in modelled climate sensitivity. However,
the simulation of clouds in climate models has shown modest improvement
relative to models available at the time of the AR4, and this has
been aided by new evaluation techniques and new observations for
clouds. Nevertheless, biases in cloud simulation lead to regional errors
on cloud radiative effect of several tens of watts per square meter.
{9.2.1, 9.4.1, 9.7.2, Figures 9.5, 9.43}

This shit is hard, but it's getting better all the time. Even with that very real and very sciency factoid of uncertainty when it comes to clouds in a number of climate models, we still have a very high level of confidence (ie, it is not uncertain) that climate change models accurately show the rapid warming after 1950.

That uncertainty does lead to questions about how bad it's going to get.

Here's what NASA's CERES satellite system observed directly about the global energy imbalance.
-global mean net TOA flux for July 2005–June 2015 is consistent with the in situ value of 0.71 W m2
-he overall uncertainty in 1 × 1 latitude–longitude regional monthly all-sky TOA flux is estimated to be 3 W m2 [one standard deviation (1)] for the Terra-only period and 2.5 W m2 for the Terra–Aqua period both for SW and LW fluxes.

So, currently state of the art Satellite observations show there is a 0.71 W m-2 energy imbalance driving the warming from GHGs, but also notes that the uncertainty of the measurements is between 2.5 W m-2 and 3.0 W m-2. So even the observational uncertainties exceed the signal.

Let's look at the models, as cited in your link to the IPCC AR5, on page 763:
Globally averaged TOA shortwave and longwave components of the radiative fluxes in 12
atmosphere-only versions of the CMIP5 models were within 2.5 W m–2 of the observed values (Wang and Su, 2013).

So there you have some pretty important facts. Even the observed TOA imbalance has uncertainties greater than the signal, let alone the climate models.

What does that mean though? Given that the observed warming of the last 100 years was driven by an energy imbalance of 0.7W m-2, it means that an uncertainty in models of 2.5W m-2 makes predictions pretty much unworkable.

Oh, but the models DO accurately model the warming of the last 100 years, how does that fit?
Well, as pointed out up thread, the answer is tuning. If you tune parameters that are modelled poorly, like clouds, to correct the energy imbalance then you can get the right imbalance and recreate the warming.

Modelling of clouds, as noted on page 820 of the IPCC report says:
Cloud feedbacks in AOGCMs are generally positive or near neutral (Shell et al., 2008; Soden et al., 2008), as evidenced by the net positive or neutral cloud feedbacks in all of the models examined in a multi-thousand member ensemble of AOGCMs constructed by parameter
perturbations (Sanderson et al., 2010)

So clouds con

My uncle Richard Fernsler came up with a method, late 1970s I recall, for identifying where lightning will strike, which helped launch his career as an exotic weapon developer for the Navy. His publications only hint at what actually gets built (functioning yet buggy unpredictable prototypes).
https://journals.ametsoc.org/d...

Did you actually read any of those links from WUWT? As usual, what that blog claims and what the papers really say are often quite different. Here, let me list them for you, along with quotes from their abstracts:
Jevrejeva, Moore, Grinsted, and Woodworth 2008:

We provide observational evidence that sea level acceleration up to the present has been about 0.01 mm/yr^2 and appears to have started at the end of the 18th century. Sea level rose by 6 cm during the 19th century and 19 cm in the 20th century... the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates of sea level are probably too low.

Thomas Frederikse 2017:

Over the same period [1958-2014], the reconstruction shows a positive acceleration of 0.07 ± 0.02 mm yr^2

Dieng, Cazenave, Meyssignac, Ablain 2017:

An important increase of the GMSL rate, of 0.8 mm/yr, is found during the second half of the altimetry era (2004–2015) compared to the 1993–2004 time span, mostly due to Greenland mass loss increase and also to slight increase of all other components of the budget.

Chen, Zhang, Church, Watson, King, Monselesan, Legresy & Harig 2017:

Here we show that the rise, from the sum of all observed contributions to GMSL, increases from 2.2 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 1993 to 3.3 ± 0.3mmyr1 in 2014. This is in approximate agreement with observed increase in GMSL rise, 2.4 ± 0.2mmyr1 (1993) to 2.9 ± 0.3mmyr1 (2014), from satellite observations that have been adjusted for small systematic drift.

The single cited paper that didn't solidly confirm the accelerating rise of global mean sea level was Holgate 2007, who merely found "high variability in the rates of sea level change", and suggested that the first half of the 20th century rose a little faster than the second half. But that study was based solely on just nine "carefully selected" tide level gauges (where the selection criteria are thinly described at best).

Your source:

Doubling carbon dioxide content in the earth's atmosphere raises the temperature of the atmosphere (assuming relative humidity is fixed) by about two degrees Celsius.

Current thinking:

"Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 (which amounts to a forcing of 3.7 W/m2) would result in 1 ÂC global warming, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#cite_note-rahmstorf2008-14)

Your "spot-on" report predicted TWICE as much warming as current science predicts.

You are assuming the model he mentioned did not include any feedbacks. I only read the first few pages of the actual paper, but it does appear that the way the model is designed would include some (not all, by any means) feedbacks in the system.

Also, "The Myth of the Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society:

An enduring popular myth suggests that in the 1970s the climate science community was predicting “global cooling” and an “imminent” ice age, an observation frequently used by those who would undermine what climate scientists say today about the prospect of global warming. A review of the literature suggests that, on the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking as being one of the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales. More importantly than showing the falsehood of the myth, this review describes how scientists of the time built the foundation on which the cohesive enterprise of modern climate science now rests.

Wrong again. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

Yeah, that never happened.

"Yeah, that never happened" is correct! Anonymous Coward says something accurate for a change.

There was no scientific consensus nor prediction by scientists that the Earth was "entering a global cooling phase."

Citations: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.8199/full/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-the-global-cooling-story-came-to-be/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/"
http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/cruz-on-the-global-cooling-myth-and-galileo/

Perhaps you don't remember this far back, but "global cooling" actually was the widely hyped fear back in the 1960s and part of the 1970s.

No, it wasn't. That claim is something deniers say all the time, but it just isn't true. Here, for example, is the American Meteorological Society: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Your own reference contradicts your claims, in giving a title from a NY times article: "Scientists ask why world climate is changing; major cooling may be ahead" (NY Times, 1974).

If it made the NY Times, that is certainly enough to qualify as being "widely hyped" and involving a fear.

Then the article goes on to mention the book "The Cooling", which was published in 1976.

it also mentions the Newsweek story: "The cooling world" (1975).

Admittedly, there were other news articles that took the opposite perspective.

However, your statement that it "just isn't true" is demonstrably false, as something can be "widely hyped" in some quarters while contrary positions are taken in others.

In short, you jumped to conclusions about what was actually said in your source.

This sort of blunder is, unfortunately, a big part of the reason why the climate change fanatics are not trusted by a large segment of the human race - even if they end up being right about some aspects of what happens, there's just too much sloppiness and carelessness and delusional thinking going on. People are assuming the world corresponds to their expectations, instead of examining the evidence - often seemingly with a big push from special interest groups with a political agenda, or as part of their support for such groups.

In short, you are making yourself part of the problem, not part of the solution.

The reality is that today we simply do not know where climate will take us - and the extent to which human technology plays a role. It is not even clear that warming will be the problem over the long term: it may be that another "Little Ice Age" will occur, and we'll be looking for way to warm the Earth. Whether orbital change, volcanoes, terrorists with nuclear weapons, asteroid collisions, or even an unexpected shift in the currents that warm Europe, we simply don't know what events the future will bring that could affect climate in regions where large numbers of human being live. Industrial chemical and heat production is and should be a potential concern - but only one of many.

Perhaps you don't remember this far back, but "global cooling" actually was the widely hyped fear back in the 1960s and part of the 1970s.

No, it wasn't. That claim is something deniers say all the time, but it just isn't true. Here, for example, is the American Meteorological Society: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

I know a lot of people today (many of whom were born in the 1980s or even the 1990s!) will wrongly claim that it was only "the media" pushing those claims back then, but the media was just reporting on what those in various scientific fields were claiming.

I was born in the 1950s, and you are wrong.

It wasn't until into the 1970s that the "global warming" hype really started up.

Wrong again. Here's the American Institute of Physics's history of Global Warming: https://history.aip.org/climat... -- the effect has been known for well over a century.

I remember the greenhouse effect being discussed in my science classes back in high school. Of course, back then it was "here's an effect that, if we keep on burning fossil fuels, might be measurable sometime by the 1990s or 2000" (which seemed impossibly far in the future back then.) Well, guess what: we kept on burning fossil fuels, the 1990s and then 2000 came, and the effect was measurable.

When it became clear by the late 1990s that we weren't really seeing any significant warming, the name was changed again to the much vaguer "climate change".

Wrong, and wrong. We were seeing significant warming by the late 1990s (check the data), and the name was changed by the Bush administration in order to get people less excited about the effect.

This is convenient, because it allows any normal variation in the Earth's dynamic, chaotic, and unpredictable weather systems to be claimed to be evidence of this alleged "climate change".

Now, on that one I'll agree with you: it annoys me when people attribute weather events to global warming. No single weather event, no hot summer in one location, no warm winter in another location, can be particularly attributed to global warming. Global warming is real, and is well understood-- but it is a long-term, global phenomenon. It is not a local thing.

Tornadoes, cyclones, etc have not decreased. The very same EPA page that you link to has the data that shows that those events are not decreasing. The data is all right there on the page you yourself are citing.

In terms of extrapolation, what you're doing is the very definition of extrapolation. You're looking at a limited dataset (US trends in diurnal highs and lows) and saying that the rest of the world is doing the same. But you don't need to look at the limited US dataset. You have the global dataset right there in the journal article I linked to. Why bother with the logic of: "1) US has this diurnal high/low trend, which is interesting, 2) the average world and US temp trends are similar, 3) the world must have the same diurnal high/low trend", when you can just look at the global data and say "1) this is the global diurnal high/low trend"?

Your underlying assumption is that the global diurnal high/low trend must look like the US trend because the averages are similar. That assumption is false. The average is not the same as taking the high and low and averaging them. The temperatures are taken frequently, sometimes as fast as once per second depending on the sensor. The max and min are the high/low temps, and average temp is the average over the entire daily dataset. On a northern hemisphere winter day, the days are short and nights are long, so the "colder" part of the day is longer than the "warmer" part of the day, making the average temperature less than (max+min)/2.

It sounds like you've come across something that you think the scientific community is pushing under the rug. But they're not. That data isn't new, and has been known and discussed in the community for a long time (see this paper from 1984 and the 149 other papers that cite it: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do.... That paper I cited earlier (have you looked at it?) shows the same US trend you observe on page 287. They're not saying it's wrong, nor are they hiding it. They're putting it in a global context, and showing that it's not representative of the global high/low trend.

You can insist that the global diurnal trend is the same as the US diurnal trend all you want so you don't have to admit you're wrong, but that won't change the facts: the US highs are decreasing and leveling off (cooling less), but the global highs are increasing and accelerating (warming more). The US diurnal trend is different than the global diurnal trend.

You may "know" that there was a global cooling scare in the 70s, but in fact there wasn't, or at least, there wasn't any such a scare supported by or coming from the science community. The American Meteorological Society wrote an article debunking that myth: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

The myth of the "1970s global cooling scare" rests primarily on one high-profile 1975 Newsweek article, with a scary headline ("The Cooling World"). But the atmospheric science community never had any consensus that the world was heading for a cooling trend.

By the way, if you can't see the citations, such as this one, you probably need new glasses!

The coverage is quite good and more than sufficient for evaluating global temperature trends (and much more besides!). In fact, the ARGO buoys are of sufficient resolution to be used in the study of mesoscale eddies!

No evidence for a scientific consensus on climate change? How about this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this? Or this?

As someone utterly terrified by a Trump presidency...

I'd say you're in stage 2 of the snowflake melting sequence.

. . . Nye is making it up: "The resolution dependence of contiguous US precipitation extremes in response to CO2 forcing" http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... "Finally, the observed record and historical model experiments were used to investigate changes in the recent past. In part because of large intrinsic variability, no evidence was found for changes in extreme precipitation attributable to climate change in the available observed record." That's why one should not get one's science from a cult of scientism hack, er, activist.

You're confusing two different things -- Fourier and Arrhenius (and everyone else) say that there is a logarithmic relationship between the increase in CO2 concentration and the increase in temperature.

This paper (as do many others) claims that there is a (near) linear relationship between emissions and temperature.

That's because doubling the amount we emit will more than double the atmospheric concentration, as the oceans will be taking up a smaller part of what we emit. Look for articles that talk about the TCRE "transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions", e.g. Le Duc et al 2015

So they are saying that since the atmosphere contains over 2,996×10^9 tonnes of CO2, adding an addition 29*10^9 tonnes of CO2 will cause the atmosphere to contain over 6,000 *10^9 tonnes? I think you are grossly underestimating increased primary production; CO2 is a fertilizer, not a growth imhibitor.

Secondly,

An approximately linear relationship between global warming and cumulative CO2 emissions is known to hold up to 2 EgC emissions on decadal to centennial timescales7, 8, 9, 10, 11; however, in some simple climate models the predicted warming at higher cumulative emissions is less than that predicted by such a linear relationship8. The climate response to five trillion tonnes of carbon

Every other modeler since Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier, and especialy Svante Arrhenius uses logarithmic relationship

if the quantity of carbonic acid [CO2] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.Svante Arrhenius

These guys are claiming the entire body of Climatological "Settled Science" is wrong and they are just throwing it out there like a bunch of assholes trolling click-bait; at least on Facebook the click-bait trolls give you some side-boob or camel-toed yoga-pants.

You're confusing two different things -- Fourier and Arrhenius (and everyone else) say that there is a logarithmic relationship between the increase in CO2 concentration and the increase in temperature.

This paper (as do many others) claims that there is a (near) linear relationship between emissions and temperature.

That's because doubling the amount we emit will more than double the atmospheric concentration, as the oceans will be taking up a smaller part of what we emit. Look for articles that talk about the TCRE "transient climate response to cumulative carbon emissions", e.g. Le Duc et al 2015

Well, not really http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Sandy was modeled for conditions occurring 100 years ago and 100 years in the future. Landfall shifted north and intensity increased with time. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Without evaluating this particular statement about radiosondes, I don't place a whole lot of credibility in what he says. This is based on his reputation. It doesn't guarantee that Goddard is wrong, but it means his claims should be viewed with more skepticism than someone with a better record on climate change issues.

Let us keep in mind that Goddard's "Debunking" of AGW isn't even based on surface temperatures.

And what is interesting is that instead of him asking "Why", he just decided My dat is right, everyone elses is wrong."

Ain't necessarily so. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Goddard has been thorougly debunked and quite often:

http://rankexploits.com/musing...

https://www.skepticalscience.c...

http://reallysciency.blogspot....

https://rhinohide.wordpress.co...

We can read an actual paper about his issue : https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibl...

Enough of this stuff. It won't change any deniers minds even if they continue to spew long debunked Proofs of their position.

Read how the Earth was cooling off back in 1977 in the PEER-REVIEWED, PUBLISHED paper from, errrr, NOAA:

Global Temperature Variation, Surface - 100mb : an Update into 1977

Anyone who says there wasn't a global cooling scare back then is a fucking liar.

And you wrote that with the unwritten assumption that this is caused by man.

It was unwritten by me but you could find it written in the scientific literature. See for instance Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, and Jones et al. 2013.

In case you think I am only showing articles that support my position you could look to the worlds leading scientific organizations such as the AGU: ("Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." ) or the Royal Society ("There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity") - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Or you could look to studies on the scientific consensus which find that about 95+% of scientists who have studied this issue agree that humans are largely responsible for warming over the last 50 years (see for example J. Cook, et al 2013, W. R. L. Anderegg 2010, P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman 2009, or N. Oreskes 2004

And you wrote that with the unwritten assumption that this is caused by man.

It was unwritten by me but you could find it written in the scientific literature. See for instance Tett et al. 2000, Meehl et al. 2004, Stone et al. 2007, Lean and Rind 2008, Huber and Knutti 2011, Gillett et al. 2012, and Jones et al. 2013.

In case you think I am only showing articles that support my position you could look to the worlds leading scientific organizations such as the AGU: ("Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years." ) or the Royal Society ("There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has been caused largely by human activity") - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Or you could look to studies on the scientific consensus which find that about 95+% of scientists who have studied this issue agree that humans are largely responsible for warming over the last 50 years (see for example J. Cook, et al 2013, W. R. L. Anderegg 2010, P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman 2009, or N. Oreskes 2004

If it were truly 99-to-1 then there wouldn't really be any sensible reason to continue the debate. The actual numbers are more like this.

It's BS. What THE AUTHOR doesn't understand is that in order for the surface to warm the TROPOSPHERE also has to warm. It's a matter of physics. So if the troposphere is not warming, neither is the surface. You can't have it both ways. It's a bit more complex than that, but that's it in a nutshell. [Lonny Eachus, 2016-01-22]

Once again, I told Lonny Eachus that AGW requires a cold upper troposphere.

You DO know how the physics of greenhouse warming is supposed to work, don't you? [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

Yes. Again, I've repeatedly told you how greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere.

I rather think it's the other way around. Theory REQUIRES mid-to-upper trop. warming. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-24]

No, I rather think it's the other way around. Again, greenhouse warming REQUIRES a cold upper troposphere. Warming from any source (solar, volcanic, alien heat ray, etc.) tends to cause an emergent property: faster warming in the tropical upper troposphere. Even if this emergent property were missing (which hasn't been proven), that would have nil implications for attribution and roughly nil implications for climate sensitivity. Are you absolutely sure that the word "REQUIRES" describes that situation accurately?

@cbfool Exactamundo. No satellite or radiosonde "signature" of warming. REQUIRED by theory... but not there. [Lonny Eachus, 2015-11-29]

"REQUIRED"? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. See above.

And anyone who clicks on my link will see that I've repeatedly told Jane/Lonny that "even if" the "hot spot" were actually missing, Jane/Lonny would still be wrong about the implications. [Dumb Scientist]

You cited one person's opinion about that. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-28]

... You quoted one person's opinion. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-10-06]

No, I cited Ingram 2013, specifically this figure, and cited Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) because it's just a mirror image of that Ingram 2013 figure.

... Further, if your quoted passage (that was presented out of context as has been your usual habit) was NOT from the paper, then my mistake. Fine. But I cleared that up straight away. ... [Jane Q. Public, 2015-09-30]

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

I posted this well before you posted your comment so I have to ask

1, Are you just trolling ?
2. Just stupid ?
3. Just trying to conform ?
4. Some combination of the above ?

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

And no thread is complete without a self righteous zealot being incorrect on the volume

And as for droughts - they are increasing as a direct result of climate change: http://phys.org/news/2011-10-h...

Let's look at the actual paper and the actual claim:

Results are given in section 3, where we present evidence that a change in the regionâ(TM)s climate has been detected and that it is unlikely that the observed Novemberâ"April Mediterranean drying since 1902 occurred due to internal variability alone. Diagnosis of the CMIP3 coupled models reveals that this detected change toward drier conditions is attributable, in part, to the Mediterranean regionâ(TM)s sensitivity to time-evolving external radiative forcing. The amplitude of the externally forced, area-averaged drying signal is roughly one-half the magnitude of the observed drying during 1902â"2010, indicating that other processes likely also contributed.

They are speaking of really poor correlation here. There are other man-made effects that need to be considered, like water table depletion, vegetation removal, and agricultural practices.

ORLY? http://www.scientificamerican....

"Climate" is used several times, but aside from empty assertions that climate affects or impacts the potential range of a disease, no connection has been claimed between the incident of tropic diseases in the US and climate change. The actual connection is travel with people bringing back diseases from the tropics.

Oh, prices are low right now. Just wait until a significant part of farmland becomes desert or salt marsh.

No, they aren't. And the primary reason why farmland would become desert or salt marsh is mismanagement both of the land and water resources. This is quite relevant because climate change might negatively impact the productivity of farmland (or it might not), but poor land and water management will negatively impact the productivity of farmland frequently to the point of the land no longer being viable farmland.

My view is that management is far more important than climate when it comes to agriculture and growing the food we need to the point that it doesn't really matter what the climate does.

Actually the explanation is easy. It was refreezing molten ice. That is sweet water on top of salt water.

This is mostly conjecture; while we have abundant data for ice extent over the decades, we have little data of ice thickness. The abstract on this paper suggests that the extent and thickness of the antarctic is increasing year over year, albeit at a lower rate than the decrease in the arctic. This is the critical point, because arctic ice is an order of magnitude greater than antarctic ice.

.@DumbSci Sherwood has credibility problems. As do you, to put it mildly. cc: @DanaRohrabacher @tan123 @ImaBannedd @SteveSGoddard [Lonny Eachus, 2015-09-29]

Is that ad hominem really the best you can do? Note that Carl Mears (scientist for the RSS dataset Lonny likes to cite) said that Steve Sherwood "knows a lot more about tropical convection than I do."

So is Lonny also going to accuse Carl Mears of having credibility problems? If so, Lonny should prepare to make a really long series of accusations. Notice that Sherwood was actually just referring to a standard result in Ingram 2013. So Lonny's going to have to extend his ad hominem to William Ingram as well.

And note that Soden and Held 2006 fig. 3 (left) is just a mirror image of the Ingram 2013 figure that Sherwood referred to while explaining that the implications of a missing hot spot are "roughly nil". Since they're saying the same thing Sherwood (and many other scientists) are saying, Lonny will have to keep throwing ad hominems at scientists until he breaks his keyboard.

Or, and this is just a suggestion, perhaps Lonny Eachus would consider reading those papers and actually trying to learn from them?

"Global cooling" did receive coverage in the popular press in the 1970s but it was far from a scientific consensus. A simple google of "global cooling 1970s" brings up many references to show this, including:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Peer review is at the core of any scientific theory or hypothesis. Peer review is required for validation of the conclusions.

Your wish is granted. From the first link in the article:

The State of the Climate in 2014 is the 25th edition in a peer-reviewed series published annually as a special supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. The journal makes the full report openly available online.

Until they provide the raw unedited unnormalized data this can't be believed.

Your wish is granted. The article discussed is a 267 page report with pages of data and extensive references explaining where the numbers come from.

Which, of course, you haven't read and have no intention of reading. It's just easy to say "show me the data" when you actually don't have the slightest interest in it.

It's hard to trust anyone who's work is disseminated by the government or media today.

That's an assertion that's hard to challenge in the libertarian atmosphere of slashdot.

Research and reports are spun mercilessly for the gain of whoever needs it.

Indeed, it's always wise to track down the actual original data, and actually look at the data and see what we know, and how well we know it, rather than to trust the media interpretations.

It may not be scientist's fault but when you hear something like "the sky is falling" and then hear it refuted over and over, one starts to take things with a grain of salt.

The media does like to run doom and destruction stories-- they are more of a story than talking about things like "slow increase in temperature over a time scale of decades."

Take, for example, Global Cooling back in the 1970's.

OK, let's take it for an example. There was never a scientific consensus about global cooling in the 1970s. The American Meteorological Society did a review, trying to look for the origin of that. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do... They summarize: "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then.

That was refuted with Global Warming in the 2000's

It was not really "refuted" per se, since it was never a scientific consensus in the first place.

and now it's simply Global Climate Change which seems to be a catch-all.

"Global Climate Change" was the term coined by the (first) Bush administration.

I don't deny GCC but I certainly want to see the data.

Excellent! That's the difference between deniers and skeptics: deniers will make any possible excuse to avoid looking at data. As it turns out, there are literally terabytes of data.

I will suggest starting with the Working Group 1 report, The Physical Science Basis of Climate Change, which summarizes what is known and how we know it. I'm most familiar with the 4th report (www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html), from 2007, but you might want to go directly to the more recent update, the 5th: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/...

From there, dive into the data from whichever source you prefer-- I'd suggest possibly the Berkeley Earth data, which does an interesting job of comparing alternative hypotheses against the temperature data: http://berkeleyearth.org/summa...

What's the old adage that Regan grabbed from the Russian's; "Trust but Verify" I think was it.

Excellent. Much better than the denier's motto: "Never trust, never verify, never look at the facts."

You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).

Given you demonstrated inability to read an understand entire paragraphs, I sincerely doubt that the summaries are at odds with the reports as often as you believe them to be. I find it more likely that are motivated to see disagreements where there are none.

Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".

Did you finish reading the paragraph? Apparently not. The next line says:

The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period (Figure SPM.3).

Then did you look at the graph? Apparently not. The graph shows total anthropogenic warming as higher than observed warming.

It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass?

What else should I call someone who takes a single sentence out of context and tries to use it to prove the exact opposite of what his source says? You are categorically, 100% wrong. The source you chose to support your argument explicitly and in plain english says that I am right and you are wrong. Then they put a graph next to it to reinforce that fact, and somehow you manage to miss both? You're wasting my time, jackass.

Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?

Because you choose to act like an ass? Your only source explicitly says you're wrong, so why are you wasting my time?

Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...

Here's a tip: If you want to provide evidence of a trend, you need more than 1 data point.

So do the impacts from aerosols. Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

Same here, this is a claim of a different trend with exactly one data point.

In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.

Personally, I wouldn't use a blog post that speculates about what a not-yet-released report might say as evidence for my case.

Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.

The problem is that people like you who apparently wouldn't know science if it bit them on the ass, keep claiming that good science is bad and bad science is good, then you accuse anyone who disagrees with you of having no integrity...

Here is one of many scathing indictments of their "work":

You are reading the 2007 "summary for policy makers" (I'm sure you'll be surprised to discover that the summaries are often at odds with the reports themselves).

Here's a link to the latest report (pdf): https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assess...

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together"

I put that last bit in bold so you can see they are indeed talking about "the sum total of all anthropogenic factors".

It's clear you've never read the consensus report (couldn't even find it!) yet you have the gall to say I'm an ass? Why can't we just have a normal conversation about this?

Most of the predicted heating comes from climate sensitivity estimates, not CO2 directly. And the climate sensitivity estimates keep getting lower. Example: http://link.springer.com/artic...

So do the impacts from aerosols. Example: http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

In other words, the latest research suggests even less warming than what the "muted" IPCC report predicts.

Actually, it's [skepticalscience.com] quite good. They provide clear, well written and referenced explanations based on actual scientific research.

Obviously you have not done your research here either, although I can understand why a person might think that at first glance. They were behind that "97% agree" study that was quoted by Obama. Unfortunately it a was really really bad study. I like to think that even people who disagree will call out really really bad science when they see it, but apparently not. Integrity of science be damned.

Here is one of many scathing indictments of their "work": http://www.joseduarte.com/blog...

The link references a peer reviewed study. Here is the direct link since you are apparently click impaired as well as an idiot. http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

This will be my last post since you guys are so horrible at debating real science you had to rate me down so I can't post.

All I can say to you is this: Stop being a sheeple. Research for yourself and you will realize that the science really is on the skeptical side of this debate. Start with my essay, REALLY READ IT, and then do your own research. http://www.tccdebate.com/

As you know, in these institutions updated there materials in the 1970s to early 1980s, from "OMG panic man-made ice age" to "OMG panic global warming"

Nice myth. The "ice age panic" was one story that made Time magazine at a time when the majority of climate research indicated a warming trend due to human cause CO2 emissions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
And about 1000 other sources if you google "1970 ice age"

I'm not going to try to convince you that AGW is a problem we should address (note I said "should be addressed", not panic over). Instead, are you afraid of something if those crazy scientists from your anecdotes get their way and the Fed institutes CO2 mitigation? Gas prices jump to $20/gallon? The government mandates CO2 trackers worn all the time? Economic disaster circa 2008?

I'll cite the elimination of lead in pretty much everything (no economic catastrophe) and the elimination of CFC's (no economic catastrophe). Also some fun facts on how we got to a point of not worrying about acid rain anymore:

"In 2007, total SO2 emissions were 8.9 million tons, achieving the program's long term goal ahead of the 2010 statutory deadline.[22]

The EPA estimates that by 2010, the overall costs of complying with the program for businesses and consumers will be $1 billion to $2 billion a year, only one fourth of what was originally predicted"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...

So tell my why addressing CO2 emissions is a bad idea (not that you explicitly stated as much in your comments)

http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...

The report is a little big, heading toward 46 Megabytes, but I'm certain there is a typo in there that will allow you to refute the whole concept of AGW.

Have at it.

But wait! There's more!

Climate data online

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-w...

Paleoclimatology data

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/data-...

Probably what people are referring to in trying to say there has been no warming recently is the Monckton analysis:

http://www.climatedepot.com/20...

He's an interesting character, for those who like to talk about Mann's irascibility. He wants scientists to be Christian, (or other appropriate religion) and wants climate change supporters to wear Swastikas in order to identify them.

I only put that in here because deniers like to talk about Mann's personality, yet one of deniers biggest hero's is a hoot in his own right. But if he were correct, it doen't matter. Science is not right or wrong based on personality.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

But he's pretty well been debunked now.

http://transitionculture.org/2...

The online presentation is the link you want.

Here is a response to the movie "The Great global Warming Swindle" a movie about how global warming isn't. It's a little sarcastic and snarky, but you might understand that.

http://www.durangobill.com/Swi...

The first instance is telling. Altered graphics and ommission of data thatat doesn't agree with a conclusion. Omitting the last 20 years temperature data is plain and simple - fraud in the name of denialism.

Anyhow, these are sources you can readily access via the internet. If you need more, I can find them for you. But you have an exercise first. Just one, taken from the last link. Explain how omitting the 20 years of data to prove the average global temperature is not increasing is ethical and honest, and adequate proof or disproof of anything. Might as well just drop all of the high temps, re-average, and claim it's getting colder. Yet it is the deniers "trump card".

And this is why deniers bear a strong relation to creationists. The Monckhaven analysis is brought up time and again despite it being proven false. Not a whole lot unlike creationists continuing to cite the "humans walking with dinosaurs" fossil, or "the eye is so complex" arguments or polonium halos or variable speed of light, or even the grandaddy of them all "Humans did not evolve from Monkeys or Apes", which is true enough, but only because humans and apes and monkees evolved from some common ancestor a long long time ago.

For the 18 years, look no further than Ben Santer. (is that good enough for you?)

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
“Our results show that temperature records of at least 17 years in length are required for identifying human effects on global-mean tropospheric temperature.”

Everything in climate science is about averaging. The Global mean temps are averaged. And most scientists would tell you that using averages is totaly retarded in the temperature context, but global warming scientists have redefined science and averages is what we use.
So now, you are going to tell me, that we use average temperatures for global mean, but WAIT, we shouldnt use averaged climate models to compare them to? Do you take people for complete tools or did you just not completely re-read your rebuttal before posting it?

Want to know why we dont like averages? Because the global mean surface air temperature has risen about 0.6 or 0.7C during the 20th century. But this rise is a result, in the most part, from the daily minimum temperature increasing at a faster rate or decreasing at a slower rate than the daily maximum as the daily maximum has basically not really changed over the same period.

About your point on models, so you are telling me when they take observed data, input it into the model, then VOILA they can make it work. Hindsight is so much fun isnt it? So will they be doing this every 20 years?

If your model cannot predict the future, because its a chaotic system and there are factors that can completely wipe out your predictions (like ENSO and others) than your model is completely useless for determining policy. The models do not track with the observed data. Plain and simple.

The warming of the oceans does not explain the complete lack of warming of the atmosphere over that period.
Did all of a sudden the oceans decided to absorb more heat than normal just to spite climate scientists? The factors affecting global warming have just decided to change for the last 20 years?

Studies show that the deep oceans are cooling (3600m or more) http://journals.ametsoc.org/do...
Also ARGO (floats) and CERES (satellites) data disagree on the amount of energy being accumulated between 2000M and the surface by a WIDE margin.
Something to keep in mind, they error bars (which they dont present for this data) would completely wipe out the observations.
Also, even if you go by argo data, the increase amounts to 0.02C per decade observed since they started using ARGO.

Lastly about ocean heat. AGW scientists claim they can measure the monthly average temperature of 0.65 BILLION cubic kilometres of ocean water to a precision of one hundredth of a degree Celsius which seems very doubtful to me.