Global warming discussion III

[Trakar]

...I ran across another analysis that went a little deeper into the "paper's" mish-mash but I didn't bookmark it. Let me give a look for it, I'll post a link if I can find it...

Not the original article but it covers some of the material from the article I read: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/201...-warming-projections-are-greatly-exaggerated/

Prof Reto Knutti, an atmospheric climate scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, says the model makes assumptions that aren't relevant today. He tells Carbon Brief:

"I'm particularly concerned about three aspects at least in this study. First, they use temperature variations over the last 800,000 years as a constraint, but of course the feedbacks in a world with whole continents covered by snow and ice are very different from a world today."

A number of the statements the new paper makes are "simply physically implausible", Knutti tells us. Another concernsis that the new paper's approach overlooks recent warming in the oceans, he adds:

"[T]he use of surface temperature alone is problematic as 90 per cent of the additional energy that goes in the climate system is taken up by the ocean. That is a critical piece of information that is not used here."

Myles Allen, professor of geosystem science at the University of Oxford, echoes this point, telling Carbon Brief:

"[The new] model asserts that there has been no warming below the surface layers of the oceans over the past few decades. It would be nice if that were true, because then … we would be looking at future warming near the low end of the IPCC's uncertainty range. Unfortunately, the observations indicate that the oceans have warmed substantially since 1970, and that energy must have come from somewhere."

Piers Forster, professor of physical climate change at the University of Leeds, seems to broadly underline scientists' concerns about the new study, telling us:

"There are many plausible simple models one can use to approximate the complexities of the Earth's climate [but they] are only ever as good as the assumptions and approximations that go into them. [These] authors cherry pick numbers and incorrectly infer ranges of parameters from past IPCC reports to build their model ... I cannot see any robust estimates of climate change emerging from their study."

Monckton has been responding to comments on a blog post by Dr Jan P Perlwitz, a Columbia University climate scientist who works at NASA GISS. You can see an extended set of comments Dr Perlwitz sent to Carbon Brief, here. A personal blog by Richard Telford, an associate professor of palaeoecology at the University of Bergen, has more [UPDATED].

Lots of good info linked at these researchers websites as well:
Prof Reto Knutti,
Myles Allen
Piers Forster
Dr Jan P Perlwitz

I'd like to call especial attention to NASA's Dr Perlwitz's comments merely because they partially involve findings that parallel my own early initial quick read-through assessment https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ny6UAs5I9_PBKoIle7tptLXjeAuQYTaznhxXvTrZLJU/edit

Oh, and for those not clear on the rating system for journals lomiller commented on, the above link also provides a bit more information about the Chinese Journal in question:

The paper is published in the journal Science Bulletin, formerly the Chinese Science Bulletin, which is described in the press release as "equivalent to Science or Nature". Journals are rated according to an 'impact factor', which is a measure of how many times the papers in that journal are referenced by other papers. The impact factor of Nature is 42, for Science it's 31, and for the Science Bulletin it's 1.4

The Chinese Academy of Science, which co-publishes the journal, forcefully distanced itself from the Heartland Institute in 2013 after the think-tank used the fact that the Academy had translated one of its reports to suggest broad support for its climate-skeptic views.

I'll keep looking for the original article I saw.

 

[Reality Check]

Our input of co2 is TINY

And the science is that this "tiny input" of CO2 has enormous effects, Haig !
This is a form of the argument from incredibility or ignorance but instead of being astonished by big numbers, you are astonished by small numbers.

This is basic climate science: increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere results in an increase in global surface temperatures. We have measured CO2 increasing. We have determined that the majority of this increased is due to human activities. We have measured the rise in temperatures expected from this increase in CO2.

What is this - the third tine that you have linked to a crank YouTube video as if it were valid science, Haig?
Argument by crank YouTube video with a Gish Gallop of often irrelevant "citations" !

 

[Reality Check]

Mmm sounds like Projection guys

No, Haig - it is a statement of fact.
It is easy to recognize when someone is a crank from their activities.
For example 5 years ago, Haig was presented with the climate science about the Sun and CO2 effects on global temperatures. For example on 19th February 2010, Haig, was presented with the evidence that a new Maunder Minimum would have little effect on global temperatures. But Haig ignores the science or just denies the science and continues to repeat the "It is the Sun" climate myth. This is evidence that Haig is a crank .

Citing Abdussamatov does not make you more credible since it emphasizes that this ignorance/denial of climate science does not allow you to recognize the ignorance stated by Abdussamatov:
The ignorance of climate science in an article by Abdussamatov
Abdussamatov's denial of climate science (the greenhouse effect)

 

[Reality Check]

How about NASA ?

'Hiatus' in rise of Earth's surface air temperature likely temporary

How about NASA stating that global surface temperatures did not "pause" - they continued to rise but slower than before, Haig!

Guess what, Haig - the Sun heats the Earth and the heat from the Sun has been constant for the last 35 years !
The Sun's heat has to go somewhere and that is into the atmosphere, land and ocean. Physics tells us that about 90% of the heat goes into the oceans. Climate scientists have measured that the HEAT CONTENT of the ocean has risen even during the 'hiatus' in surface temperatures.

The continuous repeating of the "Its The Sun" climate myth just emphasizes that you deny two simple facts about the real world, Haig:
* The Sun's heat (TSI) has been constant or a little cooling for the last 35 years.
* Global surface temperatures have risen over the last 35 years.

 

[Reality Check]

C(Lie)mate #3 - What Doesn't Make The News

Haig, endlessly linking to a crank YouTube video is not science and does not support any of the climate myths that you are writing about.

 

[Reality Check]

CLIMATE MODELS ARE OUT OF PHASE WITH REALITY

Oh dear, Haig, that is Watts Up with That really going off the deep end .
Matt Ridley wants to gamble the Earth’s future because he won’t learn from the past comments on Matt Ridley's ignorance of climate science.
In reply to "has been less than half a degree of global warming in four decades", dana points out the numerical error and ignorance in that statement:

This is incorrect – average global surface temperatures have warmed between 0.6 and 0.7°C over the past 40 years (lower atmospheric temperatures have also likely warmed more than 0.5°C, though the record hasn’t yet existed for 40 years). During that time, that temperature rise has temporarily both slowed down (during the 2000s, when there was a preponderance of La Niña events) and sped up (during the 1990s, when there was a preponderance of El Niño events). Climate models accurately predicted the long-term global warming trend.

Bob Tisdale ignores the actual content of the paragraph to cherry pick the mention of La Niña/El Niño events

He then ignores the best source - the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report which has

IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).

This clearly shows that the data is within the model ranges.
Bob Tisdale does the idiocy of plotting just a model mean against GISS data. You have to include the model ensemble range when you compare to data. This is the equivalent of leaving out error bars that any high school science student knows is wrong.

Then Bob displays some ignorance about climate models.
* The statement "The climate modelers assumed that all of the global warming occurred because of manmade climate forcings." is totally wrong.
Every applicable forcing is included in climate models. The models are run. The output turns out to be global warming. The independent observation that manmade forcings (CO2) increased over the last 40 years is what determines that this calculated global warming is caused by manmade forcings. Changing parameters such as the amount of CO2 shows that it is CO2 (which we are instrumental in changing) that is the primary driver of the models as expected from the real world (greenhouse effect + constant heat from the Sun over the last 35 years).
* The models ignored some forcings because they are cyclic and should cancel out in the 30 year period that is the standard period for climate. Thus La Niña/El Niño events were ignored in general.
* But La Niña/El Niño events are important for models on shorter scales than 30 years. Thus they are included in some model runs.

The rest of the WUWT article is just weird. An advertisement for his book. A repeat of ignorance that oscillations cancel out over the long term of climate periods. A non-real sine wave graph.

 

[not_so_new]

We have actually already discussed this paper in this thread, of course with the last rash of trash being thrown up against the screen front, this isn't the most reader friendly thread to wade through.

Thanks for the replies guys..... that sucks. I would REALLY like for global warming to be untrue and / or not man made but that paper doesn't appear to be the nail in the coffin the authors make it out to be.

I wish I knew someone over at Phys.org to have them pull that artical down or at least do a follow up to refute the bogus claims.

Anyway, back to the real, and somewhat scary, world.

Thanks

 

[bit_pattern]

None of the paper's authors are to be trusted as far as you could spit them.

AndThenThersPhysics deals with this

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/15/the-designers-of-our-climate/

Really enjoying the comments! (not something one gets to say often)

 

[CapelDodger]

Thanks for the replies guys..... that sucks. I would REALLY like for global warming to be untrue and / or not man made but that paper doesn't appear to be the nail in the coffin the authors make it out to be.

Monckton has claimed that it ends the war in his favour but he suffers from an ailment which causes, among other things (such as bulging eyes), grandiosity in the sufferer. It can be controlled with drugs but, with superb irony, Monckton thinks he's cured himself so doesn't use them.

Another symptom is paranoia, as seen in his Agenda 21 and secret World Gummint obsessions. Another of his peculiarities is his use of the term "bed-wetter" to describe anybody who criticises him, which suggests some deep trauma dating from his days in a Harrow dormitory. In summary, the man's a complete mess and is, remarkably, one of the public faces of AGW denial (along with his brother-in-law, Nigel Lawson, in the UK) having been specially selected by the Heartland Institute because he puts on a good show - on his own stage.

Speaking of which, Heartland paid for that paper to be published, I gather.

 

[CapelDodger]

Really enjoying the comments! (not something one gets to say often)

I'm rather enjoying letting off some steam .

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

It appears The Great Lakes continue to be disobedient

The winter of 2014 had the second highest ice coverage on record at 92.2 percent on March 6, 2014.

The Great Lakes were 21.2 percent ice-covered on Jan. 14, 2014

The Great Lakes were 34.1 percent ice-covered on Jan. 14, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...kes-ice-makes-a-leap-after-january-cold-snap/



.

 

[ehcks]

.

It appears The Great Lakes continue to be disobedient

The winter of 2014 had the second highest ice coverage on record at 92.2 percent on March 6, 2014.

The Great Lakes were 21.2 percent ice-covered on Jan. 14, 2014

The Great Lakes were 34.1 percent ice-covered on Jan. 14, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...kes-ice-makes-a-leap-after-january-cold-snap/

.

Local weather patterns are not climate. Especially when the reason behind the local weather being as it is is because of climate change.

Local freezing is caused by global warming.

 

[Arnold Martin]

Local weather patterns are not climate. Especially when the reason behind the local weather being as it is is because of climate change.

Local freezing is caused by global warming.

So when a glacier melts it is just local weather ?

 

[Arnold Martin]

Local weather patterns are not climate. Especially when the reason behind the local weather being as it is is because of climate change.

Local freezing is caused by global warming.

If there was no ice on the great lakes right now (January) ... would you call that a local weather pattern ?

Or would you promoted it as evidence of global warming ?

 

[Pixel42]

If there was no ice on the great lakes right now (January) ... would you call that a local weather pattern ?

Or would you promoted it as evidence of global warming ?

You cannot reliably conclude anything about climate change from a single event. To detect an underlying trend you need to look at all such events over periods of decades.

Once you have established the existence of an underlying trend you can point to individual examples of that trend. It doesn't work the other way round.

 

[bit_pattern]

.

It appears The Great Lakes continue to be disobedient

The winter of 2014 had the second highest ice coverage on record at 92.2 percent on March 6, 2014.

The Great Lakes were 21.2 percent ice-covered on Jan. 14, 2014

The Great Lakes were 34.1 percent ice-covered on Jan. 14, 2015

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...kes-ice-makes-a-leap-after-january-cold-snap/

ETA: wrong image

Ice cover goes up and down every year - it's the trend that matters, and that you can't deny

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Bit Pattern

Where did you find that graph ? .... the only one I could find looks like this

.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So when a glacier melts it is just local weather ?

Yes. But when all the glaciers melt year after year it is climate.

 

[macdoc]

Yes. But when all the glaciers melt year after year it is climate.

Close....when the total mass of glaciers declines over decades either globally or in a large region it is climate or local climate.

Some glaciers are gaining mass due to more moisture in the atmosphere.

Total net balance tho....??

Some regions like Western Antarctic are losing more to warm sea water plus thinning while the Eastern Antarctic is gaining due to more moisture in the atmosphere.
You can guess the net effect tho...

 

[Pixel42]

.

Bit Pattern

Where did you find that graph ? .... the only one I could find looks like this

.

The graph is here, but without the trend line:

http://www.climate.gov/news-features/event-tracker/great-lakes-ice-cover-most-extensive-mid-90s

But while ice cover and water levels are known to vary on the Great Lakes from year to year, scientists have observed an overall decrease in ice extent since records began in the early 1970s. From 1973 to 2010, annual ice coverage on the Great Lakes declined by 71 percent (relative to 1973).

[... graph]

Percent ice cover on the Great Lakes at winter maximum each year since 1973. The dashed line shows the long-term average of 51%. Prior to the mid-1990s, most years were above the long-term average; since then, most years have been below average.

2014 and 2015 have both been unusually high.

ETA: It's too soon to say whether the underlying downward trend of the last 30 years is going to continue, stop or reverse, but nothing can be concluded about global climate trends whatever it does. For that you need to look at the graph macdoc has just posted.