The more one studies James Renwick’s desperate letter to the Herald the more frantic appear his attempts to malign by any means, fair or foul, the increasingly confident climate sceptics who question his global warming thesis. For example, he says of Chris de Freitas:
He claims that hysteria is being stirred up against those raising “serious questions” about climate change. What are these serious questions? Can he give an example of the hysteria?
Ethically forlorn RSNZ
Serious questions in a moment, but for hysteria Renwick need only visit Hot Topic. The toxic drivel from this local stronghold of warmists is republished on the Royal Society’s own lickspittle website, SciBlogs, so Renwick can claim ignorance of it to the same extent that he can justify his association with it. When its history is written, the current chapter of the formerly illustrious RSNZ will come to be seen as its most ethically forlorn.
For the RSNZ is engaged wholeheartedly in climate activism while entirely disengaged from scientific reflection and process. These scientists allow Hot Topic daily to pour scorn, ad hominem invective and worse on every visitor with doubts about global warming orthodoxy or who refuses to embrace Gareth Renowden’s religious climate change zeal. The site is an excellent example of the climate hysteria of which Renwick claims ignorance.
Renwick’s own use of the obnoxious, pejorative epithet “climate deniers” to refer to climate sceptics is another example of this hysteria, for a confident, capable scientist would simply answer their doubts with science.
Serious questions
So what are these serious questions? De Freitas already mentioned some of them:
- What is the evidence that there should be a constant climate? For 4.2 billion years, climate has always been getting warmer or colder, wetter or drier, and there has never been runaway warming or cooling.
- What is the evidence that the putative change from rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere due to fossil fuel use would be large or damaging? Output from computer models is not evidence unless model performance has been validated and so far it has not.
- For significant global warming to occur, positive (or destabilising) feedback processes, such as rising water vapour concentration, are required for significant global warming to occur. What is the evidence that they have begun?
- How can you maintain your hypothesis of dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW), despite scientific evidence to date suggesting that negative (stabilising) feedback processes prevail, possibly due to the cooling effect of increased cloudiness from water vapour increase?
- What evidence is there that “climate change” is caused by carbon dioxide from human activities and not natural processes? This must be provided.
- What is the evidence that the influence of increasing human-produced carbon dioxide on global warming is discernible? What is the evidence that warming will be significant?
But there are more:
- For the last 20 years there’s been no significant warming.
- No evidence that atmospheric radiation can warm the ocean.
- No evidence of significant melting of ice sheets or glaciers.
- No evidence that man-made CO2 detectably warms the earth.
- No evidence of increasing hurricanes, storms, droughts or heat waves.
- No evidence of substantial or widespread decrease in ocean alkalinity.
- No evidence of positive feedback in atmospheric water vapour.
No doubt Chris himself has further serious questions, but these are what I can think of.
No evidence
Renwick says:
De Freitas states that there is no evidence to distinguish between “natural” and “human-caused” warming. There is an 86-page chapter on this topic in the last IPCC report, citing over 600 scientific papers on the subject. The conclusion was: “It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in Global Mean Surface Temperature from 1951 to 2010.” How can this be characterised as “no evidence”?
Fingerprints
It’s not hard, since no evidence is presented. In CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change: from Global to Regional, p894, there is a revealing description of attribution studies. Here’s what the IPCC says (my emphasis).
FAQ 10.1 | Climate Is Always Changing. How Do We Determine the Causes of Observed Changes?
The causes of observed long-term changes in climate (on time scales longer than a decade) are assessed by determining whether the expected ‘fingerprints’ of different causes of climate change are present in the historical record. These fingerprints are derived from computer model simulations of the different patterns of climate change caused by individual climate forcings. On multi-decade time scales, these forcings include processes such as greenhouse gas increases or changes in solar brightness. By comparing the simulated fingerprint patterns with observed climate changes, we can determine whether observed changes are best explained by those fingerprint patterns, or by natural variability, which occurs without any forcing. The fingerprint of human-caused greenhouse gas increases is clearly apparent in the pattern of observed 20th century climate change. The observed change cannot be otherwise explained by the fingerprints of natural forcings or natural variability simulated by climate models. Attribution studies therefore support the conclusion that ‘it is extremely likely that human activities have caused more than half of the observed increase in global mean surface temperatures from 1951 to 2010.’
They claim a human fingerprint is “clearly apparent” but consider this: the “fingerprints” of a human influence on climate are “derived” from a computer model, and a computer model is constructed from our knowledge of climate processes, which means we create the “fingerprints” it produces of a human influence, which “prove” to us there’s a human influence. Tell me this is not a circular argument, ipso facto, there’s no evidence.
This is not science
As if to prove beyond reasonable doubt that behind this process lies nothing but our own ignorance, we read this amazing confession:
The observed change cannot be otherwise explained
This is beyond revealing. The scientists are saying: “No matter where we look, whether at natural forcings or natural variability, we cannot find an explanation for the apparently unnatural late 20th century global surface temperature increase. Having found no explanation, in our ignorance we make one up.”
To conclude that it must be we wicked humans is not science, it’s policy looking for a pretext.
If it were science
- these scientists would still be looking for an answer; instead they’re shouting at us.
- they would be modest, restrained and happy to hear questions and doubts; instead they insult us.
- they would have developed a single skilful model, because we only need one.
- they would not pretend that the average of a hundred or more incorrect models is somehow the truth.
- they wouldn’t have prepared policy prescriptions before they announced the crisis.
Above all, if it were science, they wouldn’t belong to a political committee called “intergovernmental”.
Views: 283
Brilliant!
Dialogue is impossible when one side is spouting rubbish.
◾For the last 20 years there’s been no significant warming.
False
◾No evidence that atmospheric radiation can warm the ocean.
Why are you ignoring conduction and convection?
◾No evidence of significant melting of ice sheets or glaciers.
False
◾No evidence that man-made CO2 detectably warms the earth.
False
◾No evidence of increasing hurricanes, storms, droughts or heat waves.
The big reinsurers believe that there is and they have a lot of money riding on this.
◾No evidence of substantial or widespread decrease in ocean alkalinity.
Maybe…
◾No evidence of positive feedback in atmospheric water vapour.
False.
Simon,
Spouting rubbish, am I? Then prove it, Noddy. It’s tedious when I’m still waiting patiently on all the other times I’ve asked you politely, but prove it. And I mean each iteration of ‘false’.
Because heat rises, and because of that simple fact of physics it’s vanishingly unlikely (I’m 95% certain) that the amount of heat energy in the atmosphere generated only by our emissions can significantly heat the oceans. But I didn’t say it’s impossible, just that there’s no evidence. So if there is evidence of significant warming available by this means, please feel free to present it.
This would be funny if there wasn’t so much money riding on it. You refer to the big reinsurers as though they’re reliable witnesses, but they are foxes in charge of the flamin’ henhouse. They have an enormous incentive to scare the policyholders out of their wits. OF COURSE the insurers believe that these perils will increase… sorry, I mean, state endlessly that these perils will increase, because IT LETS THEM RAISE THEIR PREMIUMS! (Sorry for shouting, but I’ve said it many times.) They are making billions from this scam. They have no credibility in the matter. Evidence is always persuasive.
The only indication (and I don’t dignify it with the term evidence) of increasing storms, etc., is the output of climate models known to be unvalidated and unreliable. But, if you’ve found some, I’m always open…
Mike,
🙂
Simon
◾ For the last 20 years there’s been no significant warming.
[Simon] >”False”
True. The El Nino warming is gone, temperatures are on the way back to neutral (see GISTEMP, UAH, RSS) and there’s a La Nina on the way i.e. the “pause/hiatus” is back.
◾ No evidence that atmospheric radiation can warm the ocean.
[Simon] >”Why are you ignoring conduction and convection?”
We’re not Simon. Look at the typical earth’s energy budgets at surface.
Surface Heat Budget Comparison:
Tropical Pacific (Fairall et al) vs Global (Stephens et al) vs Southern Ocean (Shulz et al).
Tropical Pacific, Global, Southern Ocean (Wm-2)
+191.5 ……. +165 ………. +130 …………… SW solar Radiation
-103.3 ……….. -88 …………. -76 ……………. Latent Heat (your “convection” Simon)
-7.7 …………… -24 …………. -19 ……………. Sensible Heat (your “conduction” Simon)
-57.1 …………. -52.4 ………. -45 ……………. LW outgoing Radiation (OLR)
+23.4 …………. +0.6 ………. -10 ……………. Mean net heat flux Q (Gain/Loss) W.m-2
The Pacific Ocean gains heat in the tropics and loses heat north and south in the high latitudes.
There is no heat gain in either tropical Pacific, or Global, or Southern Ocean from “man made heat” by any energy transfer flux – radiation, sensible heat, or latent heat.
◾ No evidence that man-made CO2 detectably warms the earth.
[Simon] >”False”
True Simon. Look at the surface energy budgets above. There is no net DLR flux into the earth’s surface.
CO2 is only about 2 – 3% of total DLR anyway. Even if there was a net DLR flux, there could be no warming because DLR only penetrates water a maximum of about the thickness of a human hair (100 microns) in ideal conditions, land matter even less.
***************************************************************************************
But the critical criteria (as per IPCC) is the earth’s energy budget at TOA – not all the above.
Theoretical CO2 forcing at TOA was 1.9 W.m-2 @ 400ppm (1.83 in AR5). Total effective radiative forcing including solar (ERF) was 2.33 W.m-2 in AR5.
2.33 W.m-2 imbalance increasing at TOA – Theory
0.6 W.m-2 no imbalance change at TOA – Actual
Theory is 4 times actual and increasing. CO2 theory is 3 times actual and increasing. Theory is falsified.
If CO2 does not pass the critical climate change criteria (it doesn’t), there is no need to consider any other secondary sub-criteria. That’s ALL of the above in Richard Treadgold’s post Simon – ALL immaterial and irrelevant once theory is falsified at the primary level.
All we need to falsify man-made climate change theory is this:
Earth’s Energy Budget IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 2: Stephens et al (2012) Figure 1
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/images/ngeo1580-f1.jpg
>”All we need to falsify man-made climate change theory is this: …..[critical criteria & observations]……”
Game over.
>”CLIMATE CHANGE 2013 The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution of Climate Change”
Or, in the case of ocean warming – Attribution by Speculation
>”Even if there was a net DLR flux, there could be no warming because DLR only penetrates water a maximum of about the thickness of a human hair (100 microns) in ideal conditions………”
This was of course dismissed out of hand by the IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution authors when in the Chapter 10 review process, John McLean demanded a retraction of attribution that depended on false AO interface physics.
Read about that in this section of the following article:
The question of AR5 Chapter 10 author competency
IPCC Ignores IPCC Climate Change Criteria – Incompetence or Coverup?
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/IPCCIgnoresIPCCClimateChangeCriteria.pdf
Not the only false physics that the man-made climate change conjecture depends on either. The entire AGW notion of heat moving from a cold object (troposphere) to a warm object (surface) violates the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. A violation proven by the earth’s energy budgets upthread.
You wont read about that in any IPCC assessment report though. It would NEVER get past the review gatekeepers as in the case of McLean above.
>”Or, in the case of ocean warming – Attribution by Speculation”
Details here:
Anthropogenic Ocean Heating? Part 2: The Improbable IPCC Mechanism
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/52688456/AnthropogenicOceanHeatingPart2TheImprobableIPCCMechanism.pdf
The Pause Update: July 2016
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2016/08/07/the-pause-update-july-2016/
>”Warmists more frantic”
Resorting to all sorts of maneuverings now:
‘Decadal Climate Variability’ – Posted on August 8, 2016 | by Judith Curry
The National Academies Press has published a new document: Frontiers in Decadal Climate Variability: Proceedings of a Workshop. [hotlink]
https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/08/decadal-climate-variability/
Excerpts from the Overview and Introduction provide context:
The very same thought crossed my mind too.
Apparently, Renwick and Naish did a special version of their climate roadshow for Christchurch, which spent some time on the sea level issue
Apparently some new research on the Antarctic suggests that it might be “worse than we thought”. That’s all I managed to glean from our community meeting last Friday
They’ve lost at TOA, lost at GMST, so inevitably they have to go to the ocean.
They’ll lose there too. The physics and heat budgets preclude a win. When people with enough transferrable heat smarts investigate their “93 percent of the excess heat from GHGs is stored in the ocean” meme, they will find the claim has no basis in fact.
Again (from last post), this is a monumental scientific fraud.
‘How The Left Is Weaponizing The American Legal System’ [“Lawfare”]
Various progressive factions have undertaken an effort to criminalize dissent using the courts and statutory law.
By Daniel Payne
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/08/how-the-left-is-weaponizing-the-american-legal-system/
Payne:
And,
It;’s not about science anymore, the Left have lost that. It’s about ideology and dissent now.
What a load of rubbish, ocean heat content has been well studied and is well understood:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Simon,
What exactly is “a load of rubbish”? What part of that large web page are you wanting us to read?
Please provide the evidence for your previous excursion into denial (of what I said), saying “false, false, false.”
Simon
>”ocean heat content has been well studied and is well understood:”
EXACTLY. From the thread in last post a breakdown of the data you refer to Simon (didn’t you keep up with that?):
Global 0 – 2000m OHC is down considerably, North Pacific is up.
Graphs http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Basin data
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/basin_tsl_data.html
Pacific 3-month 0 – 2000 meters (Apr-Jun) 10^22 Joules
YEAR PO NP SP
2005.375 11.039 15.070 7.735
2006.375 14.439 19.223 10.519 << Similar to 2016.375
2007.375 9.109 14.388 4.782
2008.375 12.022 17.200 7.777
2009.375 13.734 19.404 9.086
2010.375 10.937 15.404 7.275
2011.375 9.532 7.738 11.002
2012.375 13.284 16.522 10.630
2013.375 15.233 19.521 11.718
2014.375 16.989 14.648 18.907
2015.375 19.806 14.947 23.788
2016.375 14.109 19.071 10.041 << Similar to 2006.375 10 years ago
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month_sl/a-mm-p0-2000m4-6.dat
World 3-month 0 – 2000 meters all months 10^22 Joules
2014-6,19.914608 << As it is now in 2016-6
2014-9,18.526079
2014-12,21.123238
2015-3,23.416958
2015-6,22.368597
2015-9,21.546423
2015-12,22.271896
2016-3,22.931677
2016-6,19.944710 << Back where it was 2 years ago
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/3month/ohc2000m_levitus_climdash_seasonal.csv
Confounds and defies anthropogenic attribution but Liu, Xie,and Lu manage it nonetheless:
'Tracking ocean heat uptake during the surface warming hiatus'
Wei Liu, Shang-Ping Xie, and Jian Lu (2016)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821003/
Discussion
“The deep (700–1,500 m) ocean heat uptake observed during the 21st century in the Atlantic and Southern Oceans primarily reflects anthropogenic heat entering the subsurface ocean via the deep MOC.”
They had to lever it in some how. Odd that human heat only enters the Atlantic and Southern Oceans though. And only at 700–1,500 m.
Figure 2 is what it is all about (Global, Atlantic, Southern, Pacific and Indian Oceans):
Figure 2: Observed and simulated OHC. [1970 – 2012, 10^23 Joules]
OHC integrated from the surface to indicated depths in global oceans, the Atlantic, Southern Ocean, Pacific and Indian Ocean from the Ishii data (a,d,g,j,m) and the ensemble means of the CESM Hiatus (b,e,h,k,n) and Surge (c,f,i,l,o) groups. All the curves are shown as a 12-month running mean by subtracting the annual mean value of the first year (year 1970).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4821003/figure/f2/
Note that the anomaly is from start date 1970 – not as per the NODC data above.
There is nothing in common in the 4 obs profiles: d Atlantic, g Southern, j Pacific, m Indian.
But you can see the human heat in d and g /Sarc
It is impossible to make the attribution (only "reflects" note) Liu, Xie,and Lu make.
Solar heating is the sole source of the ocean heat because it is the only net downwards flux in the surface heat budgets upthread. Ocean warming by GHGs is an impossiblity because there is no net GHG flux down and the Atm-Ocean (AO) radiation-matter physics prohibits it anyway as does the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Even if there was a net DLR flux, there could be no warming because DLR only penetrates water a maximum of about the thickness of a human hair (100 microns) in ideal conditions
The anthro miss-attribution is a monumental scientific fraud and provably so as above from the "well studied and is well understood" OHC data and the criteria as mentioned previously.
So we are on the same page so far Simon. But you preface your comment, with:
What, specifically, is “a load of rubbish”?
If you are referring to the National Academies Press statement (also peddled by Niash & Renwick):
Then I agree with you Simon, it is “a load of rubbish”. It is also a physical impossibility given the earth’s heat budgets upthread, the AO interface physics, and the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynaomics.
Again, that miss-attribution is a monumental scientific fraud and provably so.
>”ocean heat content has been well studied and is well understood:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/”
BIG PROBLEM for the Warmies.
0 – 2000m OHC 1950 – 2004 about 22 x 10^22 Joules or 220 ZetaJoules (10^21) assuming data from 1950.
Murphy et al (2009) total accumulated theoretical forcing 1950 -2004 (GHGs + Solar) 1700 ZetaJoules. About 100 solar, residual 1700 – 100 = 1600 x 93% = 1488 to ocean from GHGs theoretical.
220 – 100 solar = 120 actual estimate.
1488 ZetaJoules to ocean from GHGs – Theory and [miss]attribution 1950 – 2004
120 ZetaJoules to ocean from GHGs – Obs estimate assuming data from 1950 and solar estimate correct.
Houston, we have a problem.
>”BIG PROBLEM for the Warmies.”
This is how Steve Easterbrook explains it away:
# # #
The last 2 sentences are complete bunkum.
>”Because the earth’s temperature rose during this period, it also lost increasingly more energy back into space.”
Wrong Steve. OLR is not losing “increasingly more energy back into space”:
Figure: Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) at the top of the atmosphere between 180oW and 179oE (0oE and 359.5oE) and 90oN and 90oS since June 1974 according to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.climate4you.com/images/OLR%20Global%20NOAA.gif
There was never the 1400ZJ of GHG “energy” to begin with. The only “energy” is solar “energy”.
>”When greenhouse gases trap heat, the earth’s temperature keeps rising until outgoing energy and incoming energy are in balance again”
Except OLR is static and so is the earth’s energy imbalance at a measly 0.6 W.m-2. Watch the El Nino effect on that.
And the onjly “trapped” energy in the climate system is in the ocean heat sink and it is solar-sourced heat. That’s why it is called a heat sink. The atmosphere is a bit player, not a heat sink, and merely an energy transfer medium from surface to space. Kevin Trenberth says the oceanic heat sink adds “10-100 years” to the climate system i.e. an atmospheric temperature response to a change in solar ocean heating takes “10-100 years”. Atmospheric temperature rises in response to oceaninc heat sink gain from solar forcing at the surface (SSR) – not from the wildly excessive and redundant GHG “energy”.
>3.1 Fig 1 “shows the earth storing “only” about 300ZJ”
No Steve, 3.1 Fig 1 shows the earth storing “only” about 275ZJ
But 13.1-Fig-1 shows theoretical GHG forcing of 1400ZJ. We are told that “93 percent of the excess heat from GHGs is stored in the ocean”. That’s 1302ZJ.
1302ZJ does not equal 275ZJ.
Even if we use the effective “total energy” value from 13.1-Fig-1, 93% of 800ZJ still does not equal 275ZJ.
The forcings in 3.1 Fig 1, including solar (TSI), all apply to the TOA energy budget – not the surface. The heat storage in the ocean is forced by surface solar radiation (SSR). SSR forcing is in the order of 10 W.m-2/decade regionally.The surface energy imbalance is around 0.6 W.m-2 for comparison.
SSR forcing far exceeds TSI forcing at TOA, and SSR is the surface heating agent that easily explains 275ZJ ocean storage 1971–2010 once the effect of aerosols and land use change are accounted for.
The theoretical GHG forcing (1400ZJ) is completely redundant to ocean heat. The surface heat budgets upthread prove that.
>”SSR forcing far exceeds TSI forcing at TOA, and SSR is the surface heating agent that easily explains 275ZJ ocean storage 1971–2010″
Fairall et al (1976) data (Table 5) shows tropical Pacific SSR forcing exceeded the total upwards flux by 23.4 W.m-2. From Upthread:
Surface Heat Budget Comparison:
Tropical Pacific (Fairall et al) vs Global (Stephens et al) vs Southern Ocean (Shulz et al).
Tropical Pacific, Global, Southern Ocean (Wm-2)
+191.5 ……. +165 ………. +130 …………… SW solar Radiation
-103.3 ……….. -88 …………. -76 ……………. Latent Heat (your “convection” Simon)
-7.7 …………… -24 …………. -19 ……………. Sensible Heat (your “conduction” Simon)
-57.1 …………. -52.4 ………. -45 ……………. LW outgoing Radiation (OLR)
+23.4 …………. +0.6 ………. -10 ……………. Mean net heat flux Q (Gain/Loss) W.m-2
The Pacific Ocean gains heat in the tropics and loses heat north and south in the high latitudes.
There is no heat gain in either tropical Pacific, or Global, or Southern Ocean from “man made heat” by any energy transfer flux – radiation, sensible heat, or latent heat.
>”Wrong Steve. OLR is not losing “increasingly more energy back into space”
Why don’t Warmies check the actual data BEFORE making their brainless claims?
They’re so fixated on what they THINK is happening that it never occurs to them to check the facts.
Steve Easterbrook is a professor of computer science at the University of Toronto. His blog, Serendipity, is about “Applying systems thinking to computing, climate and sustainability”. In the quote upthread he links (see “[hotlink]”) to this page:
The Climate as a System, part 3: greenhouse gases
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2013/08/the-climate-as-a-system-part-3-greenhouse-gases/
His”system” is this LOOP (apparently):
The energy system interacting with the basic climate system
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/Screen-Shot-2013-08-27-at-10.54.31-AM.png
Steve obviously doesn’t understand thermodynamics, energy budgets, or systems, going by the lower LOOP. It’s not a LOOP Steve. The system is this:
Solar energy in => oceanic heat sink => energy out to atmosphere (hence “temperature +”) + space (OLR).
“GHGs in atmosphere” have no effect whatsoever on OLR (see obs graph upthread) contrary to Steve’s “system” showing “outgoing infra-red radiation +”. The difference between energy in and energy out is the TOA energy imbalance – not a “net radiative forcing +/-” LOOP which is merely theory, and wrong given the respective values.
So because systems guy Steve got his LOOP system wrong (he’s out of his depth in other words), he ties himself in knots trying to explain away the glaring discrepancy between theoretical accumulated GHG forcing and actual accumulated ocean heat.
Herein lies the fallacy of LOOPY climate systems.
>”SSR forcing far exceeds TSI forcing at TOA, and SSR is the surface heating agent that easily explains 275ZJ ocean storage 1971–2010″
That explanation starts in the 1920s:
Observed decadal variations in surface solar radiation and their causes
Atsumu Ohmura (2009)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011290/full
5. Conclusion
# # #
>”The magnitudes of the variation are estimated at +12, −8 and +8 W m−2, for the first brightening, for the dimming and the recent brightening periods, respectively.”
Net SSR forcing 1920s – 2005: +12 W.m-2.
Now compare that to the IPCC’s table of TOA forcings 1750 – 3005:
FAQ 2.1, Figure 2. Summary of the principal components of the radiative forcing of climate change. All these radiative forcings result from one or more factors that affect climate and are associated with human activities or natural processes as discussed in the text. The values represent the forcings in 2005 relative to the start of the industrial era (about 1750).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1-figure-2.html
TSI forcing at TOA is only about +0.1 W.m-2 1750 – 2005 (ludicrous in itself)
SSR forcing at Sfc is estimated +12 W.m-2 1920s – 2005.
SSR is 120 times greater than TSI at TOA.
Hence the ocean heat miss-attribution by the IPCC and climate science generally.
Ohmura:
+12 W.m-2 (1920 to 2005) x 0.055 = +0.66 K.
This is the true “climate sensitivity” (CS) to SSR – not GHGs. This corresponds to the temperature rise 1920s – 2000s:
[IPCC AR5] (Fig SPM.1) Observed globally averaged combined land and ocean surface temperature anomaly 1850-2012. The top panel shows the annual values; the bottom panel shows decadal means. (Note: Anomalies are relative to the mean of 1961-1990).
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/wp-content/IPCC-AR5-WG1-Fig-SPM1.png
One day, far off in the future, Warmies and LukeWarmies will figure this out.
But it will take time. Lots of time. They are really REALLY slooooow at figuring stuff like this out..
Factoid
The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1,600,000 ZetaJoules, about 2000 times larger than the total internal energy, 940 ZetaJoules, of the whole atmosphere.
That’s a lot of “Hiroshima bombs”. Easterbrook – “one zettajoule is about the energy that would be released from 200 million bombs of the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima”. So 1.6 million x 200 million = 320,000,000 million “Hiroshima bombs” of heat in the ocean.
Question: What is the source of the ocean heat?
>”The total internal energy of the whole ocean is more than 1,600,000 ZetaJoules”
275 ZetaJoules increase 1971–2010 is 0.017%.
wow.
‘Scientist Predicts ‘Little Ice Age,’ Gets Icy Reception From Colleagues’
Michael Bastasch, 08/09/2016
Professor Valentina Zharkova at Northumbria University is being attacked by climate change proponents for publishing research suggesting there could be a 35-year period of low solar activity that could usher in an “ice age.”
Zharkova and her team of researchers released a study on sunspot modeling, finding that solar activity could fall to levels not seen since the so-called “Little Ice Age” of the 1600s. Zharkova’s conclusions may have huge implications for global temperature modeling, but her analysis is not accepted by some climate scientists.
“Some of them were welcoming and discussing. But some of them were quite — I would say — pushy,” she told The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF) in an interview on her solar study.
In fact, Zharkova said some scientists even tried to have her research suppressed.
“They were trying to actually silence us,” she said. “Some of them contacted the Royal Astronomical Society, demanding, behind our back, that they withdraw our press release.”
[…]
Climate scientists were quick to ask the U.K.’s Royal Astronomical Society to suppress Zharkova’s findings.
“The Royal Astronomical Society replied to them and CCed to us and said, ‘Look, this is the work by the scientists who we support, please discuss this with them,’” Zharkova told the GWPF.
“We had about 8 or 10 exchanges by email, when I tried to prove my point, and I’m saying, I’m willing to look at what you do, I’m willing to see how our results we produced and what the sun has explained to us,” she said. “So how this is transformed into climate we do not produce; we can only assume it should be. So we’re happy to work with you, and add to your data our results.
“So don’t take the sunspots which you get, we can give you our curve. Work with our curve. So they didn’t want to,” she said.
>>>>>
http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/09/scientist-predicts-little-ice-age-gets-icey-reception-from-colleagues/
Renwick in the press today
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/82917858/ten-things-to-know-about-climate-change
‘New Solar Research Raises Climate Questions, Triggers Attacks’
Date: 09/08/16, Global Warming Policy Forum
[…]
Professor Valentina Zharkova:
[…]
Professor Zharkova relates than some climatologists resented her discovery:
http://www.thegwpf.com/new-solar-research-raises-climate-questions-triggers-attacks/
>”Renwick in the press today”
The climate models use TSI at TOA but not SSR. So of course they get it wrong in the models – GIGO.
From upthread:
TSI forcing at TOA is only about +0.1 W.m-2 1750 – 2005 (ludicrous in itself)
SSR forcing at Sfc is estimated +12 W.m-2 1920 – 2005.
SSR is 120 times greater than TSI at TOA.
Worse still.
Theoretical GHG forcing is far in excess of actual earth’s heat as detailed upthread – GIGO again.
This is a falsehood. A miss -attribution. Unsubstantiated by the IPCC. And physically impossible as detailed upthread.
GIGO all the way down.
>”The climate models use TSI at TOA but not SSR. So of course they get it wrong in the models – GIGO.”
They try to simulate SSR (not parameterize note) but they get that wrong so effectively GIGO.
’20th century changes in surface solar irradiance in simulations and observations’
A. Romanou,1 B. Liepert,2 G. A. Schmidt,3 W. B. Rossow,3 R. A. Ruedy,4 and Y. Zhang1
Received 5 October 2006; revised 23 December 2006; accepted 5 February 2007; published 8 March 2007.
1 Department of Applied Physics and Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, New York, USA.
2 Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, Palisades, New York, USA.
3 NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, New York, New York, USA.
4 Sigma Space Partners, New York, New York, USA.
[1] The amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface is a key parameter in the hydrological and energy cycles of the Earth’s climate. We analyze 20th Century simulations using nine state-of-the-art climate models and show that all models estimate a global annual mean reduction in downward surface solar radiation of 1–4 W/m2 at the same time that the globe warms by 0.4–0.7C. In single forcing simulations using the GISS-ER model, this ‘‘global dimming’’ signal is shown to be predominantly related to aerosol effects. In the global mean sense the surface adjusts to changes in downward solar flux instantaneously by reducing the upward fluxes of longwave, latent and sensible heat. Adding increased greenhouse gas forcing traps outgoing longwave radiation in the atmosphere and surface which results in net heating (although reduced) that is consistent with global warming over the 20th Century. Over the 1984–2000 period, individual model simulations show widely disparate results, mostly related to cloud changes associated with tropical Pacific variations, similar to the changes inferred from the satellite data analysis. This suggests that this time period is not sufficient to determine longer term trends.
2. 20th Century Trends
[6] Over the 20th Century all models show global mean decreases (Figure 1a) in SWD ranging from 1 to 4 W/m2 alongside near-surface temperature increases ranging between 0.4 and 0.7C. We construct a multi-model mean using an equal weighting for each model’s ensemble mean (Figure 1b) which shows decreases in the SWD of up to 0.07 W/m2/yr regionally.
https://www.image.ucar.edu/~nychka/IDAG/Papers/Romanou_etal_surface_solar.pdf
# # #
“Key parameter”. No kidding?
Demonstrably false, as detailed upthread.
Ya think?
This demonstrates perfectly how solar forcing in climate models is garbage. And garbage in gives garbage out (GIGO).
Atsumu Ohmura (2009), see upthread, has SSR forcing INCREASING (+ve)12 W.m-2 from 1920 – 2000. Climate models have SSR forcing DECREASING (-ve)1 to (-ve)4 W/m2 over the 20th Century.
(+ve)12 W.m-2 INCREASE in SSR forcing from 1920 – 2000 – Atsumu Ohmura (2009),
(-ve)1 to (-ve)4 W/m2 DECREASE in SSR forcing 1900 – 2000 – Climate Models
GIGO all the way down.
Prof. Renwick has had the opportunity to write an op-ed on stuff.co.nz:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/82917858/ten-things-to-know-about-climate-change
He seems fairly confident about a 1m sea level rise projection by 2100. I am less sure, but at least I acknowledge that he knows more about the subject than I do.
Romanou et al:
Really just stating the obvious and basically a no-brainer. So OK, where’s the “key parameter” SSR in the IPCC’s table of forcings?
IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 8 Figure 8-17: Components of Radiative Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/report/graphics/images/Assessment%20Reports/AR5%20-%20WG1/Chapter%2008/Fig8-17.jpg
Conspicuously absent. Why? Reason: Those 8-17 forcings are only applicable at TOA and from 1750. The major 20th Century forcing at the SURFACE (SSR) far exceeds any forcing at TOA from 1750, real or not.
AR5 Chapter 8 Radiative Forcing:
This “concept” is the fatal flaw in IPCC reasoning and climate modeling. It neglects the major (by far) 20th century forcing SSR.
GIGO all the way down.
Simon
>”He [Renwick] seems fairly confident about a 1m sea level rise projection by 2100. I am less sure, but at least I acknowledge that he knows more about the subject than I do.”
Renwick’s not an oceanographer. And it wouldn’t take much to know more than you Simon.
But Renwick’s basing his confidence on the IPCC’s fatally flawed radiative forcing concept (see previous comment).
GIGO all the way down
Simon
Andy on August 10, 2016 at 9:01 am said:
Renwick in the press today
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/82917858/ten-things-to-know-about-climate-change
Simon on August 10, 2016 at 11:30 am said:
Prof. Renwick has had the opportunity to write an op-ed on stuff.co.nz:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/opinion/82917858/ten-things-to-know-about-climate-change
Andy beat you by 2 and half hours Simon.
If you actually followed these threads you wouldn’t keep coming up with mindless trivia.
>”If you [Simon] actually followed these threads you wouldn’t keep coming up with mindless trivia.”
Not implying that Andy’s first reference to Renwick was “mindless”, just Simon’s second reference to exactly the same article was.
Besides, Andy’s comment generated a subthread:
#28 Andy
#30 Richard
#31 Richard
#33 Richard
Johnny-come-lately Simon (as always) comes in at #32 duplicating #29 by Andy.
But as trolls go, Simon’s “mindless trivia” is as good as any I suppose. He’s the only regular troll we’ve got now so we haven’t got much choice anyway.
>He [Renwick] seems fairly confident about a 1m sea level rise projection by 2100
At some point we would need to see some fairly noticeable acceleration in SLR, which in NZ anyway seems to be absent
I think that the one metre claim could be falsified by observations in 10-20 years or less, unless there is a claim that very non-linear behaviour will kick in at some stage
Following these threads is impossible due to the gross regurgitation and verbiage that lie in between.
Simon
>”Following these threads is impossible due to the gross regurgitation and verbiage that lie in between.”
In other words, you have a gross comprehension problem Simon. An inability to comprehend. Explains why you never learn anything Simon.
Have you tried a remedial reading course?
‘How well do IPCC-AR4/CMIP3 climate models simulate global dimming/brightening and twentieth-century daytime and nighttime warming?’
Martin Wild, First published: 1 May 2009
Abstract
[1] Observations indicate that greenhouse induced twentieth-century warming has been strongly modulated by variations in surface solar radiation. Between the 1950s and 1980s, declining surface solar radiation (“global dimming”) likely caused a dampening of global warming, whereas increasing surface solar radiation (“brightening”) may have contributed to the rapid warming in the last 2 decades, and possibly also in the first half of the twentieth century. This is also reflected in the decadal evolution of diurnal temperature range, which is highly correlated with surface solar radiation, and which shows a distinct transition from a strong decrease between the 1950s and 1980s, toward a leveling off thereafter. The present study investigates to what extent these effects are simulated in the latest generation of global climate models used in the fourth Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report (AR4) (phase 3 of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project (CMIP3) models). While these models reproduce the overall twentieth century warming over global land surfaces well, they underestimate the decadal variations in the warming and particularly also in diurnal temperature range, indicative of a lack of decadal variations in surface solar radiation in the models.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011372/full
‘Assessment of global dimming and brightening in IPCC-AR4/CMIP3 models and ERA40’
Article (PDF Available) in Climate Dynamics 37(7):1671-1688 · October 2010
Martin Wild, Edgar Schmucki
Abstract
Observations indicate that solar radiation incident at the Earth surface underwent substantial decadal variations in the second half of the twentieth century, with a tendency towards reduction from the 1950s to the 1980s (“global dimming”) and a partial recovery thereafter (“brightening”) at widespread locations. The most reliable observational records from the Global Energy Balance Archive (GEBA) are used to evaluate the ability of the climate models participating in CMIP3/IPCC-AR4 as well as the ERA40 reanalysis to reproduce these decadal variations. The results from 23 models and reanalysis are analyzed in five different climatic regions where strong decadal variations in surface solar radiation (SSR) have been observed. Only about half of the models are capable of reproducing the observed decadal variations in a qualitative way, and all models show much smaller amplitudes in these variations than seen in the observations. Largely differing tendencies between the models are not only found under all-sky conditions, but also in cloud-free conditions and in the representation of cloud effects. The ERA40 reanalysis neither reproduces the major decadal variations in SSR, despite strong observational constraints on the temporal evolution of the state of the atmosphere, since time varying aerosol loadings are missing. Climate models and reanalyses are therefore not yet at a stage to provide regionally consistent estimates of decadal changes in SSR. Reproduction of these changes would be essential for an adequate representation of regional scale climate variations and impacts, and short-term (decadal) climate projections.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225778150_Assessment_of_global_dimming_and_brightening_in_IPCC-AR4CMIP3_models_and_ERA40?enrichId=rgreq-2ff69b23d38577b72cfaa0aa1694f55c-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzIyNTc3ODE1MDtBUzoxMDMwMTI4MzE4NTg2ODlAMTQwMTU3MTU4NDU2MA%3D%3D&el=1_x_3
‘Pinker et al: Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?’
Posted: April 10, 2013 by tallbloke
Errrmm, why I have not heard of this 2006 paper before? 1.6W/m^2 per decade is a not insignificant trend. Did the IPCC ignore this?
Do Satellites Detect Trends in Surface Solar Radiation?
R. T. Pinker, B. Zhang, E. G. Dutton (2006)
Abstract
Long-term variations in solar radiation at Earth’s surface (S) can affect our climate, the hydrological cycle, plant photosynthesis, and solar power. Sustained decreases in S have been widely reported from about the year 1960 to 1990. Here we present an estimate of global temporal variations in S by using the longest available satellite record. We observed an overall increase in S from 1983 to 2001 at a rate of 0.16 watts per square meter (0.10%) per year; this change is a combination of a decrease until about 1990, followed by a sustained increase. The global-scale findings are consistent with recent independent
satellite observations but differ in sign and magnitude from previously reported ground observations. Unlike ground stations, satellites can uniformly sample the entire globe.
SSR trend Pinker et al (2006): Global
https://tallbloke.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/pinker2005.png
Full paper here [hotlink]
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/pinker-et-al-do-satellites-detect-trends-in-surface-solar-radiation/
# # #
>”Did the IPCC ignore this?”
Do we need to ask?
In comments:
Roger Andrews says: April 11, 2013 at 3:29 am
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2013/04/10/pinker-et-al-do-satellites-detect-trends-in-surface-solar-radiation/#comment-50079
According to Pinker et al’s Figure 5, reproduced below for reference, solar radiation over the oceans increased by about 5 w/m2 between 1983 and 2001 while solar radiation over land areas decreased slightly. How does this happen?
SSR trends Pinker et al (2006) Figure 5: A Land only, B Oceans only
http://oi48.tinypic.com/6ooggj.jpg
Also, does anyone have an explanation for the abrupt +/- 10 w/m2 downward excursion in the ocean record in 1994?
Romanou et al 2007
Wild 2009
Wild and Schmucki 2010
Ohmura 2009
+12 W.m-2 (1920 to 2005) x 0.055 = +0.66 K.
SSR explains 20th century warming without recourse to GHGs.
>”Did the IPCC ignore this?” Do we need to ask?
From Google:
9.2.2.2 Aerosol Scattering and Cloud Feedback in Models
“,,,,, with the long-term upward trend in surface radiation found by Pinker et al, ,,,,”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2-2.html
3.4.4.2 Surface Radiation – AR4 WGI Chapter 3
“In addition, the satellite-observed increase in surface radiation noted by Pinker et al.”
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-2.html
# # #
Nothing in AR5 that I can see. Be interesting to see what they made of this in AR5 Chapter 3 especially.
>”Be interesting to see what they made of this [Pinker et al 2006] in [AR4] Chapter 3 especially.”
Chapter 3 refers to Pinker et al 2005 but it is probably the same paper.
3.4.4.2 Surface Radiation
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-4-4-2.html
# # #
No assessment of SSR in respect to surface temperature. For that we go to the Technical Summary (TS):
Technical Summary
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ts.html
TS 2.6 Surface Forcing and the Hydrologic Cycle
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/tssts-2-6.html
>”However, unlike radiative forcing [RF], it [‘surface forcing’] cannot be used to quantitatively compare the effects of different agents on the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change.”
So they throw out the “key” surface warming agent (”The amount of solar irradiance reaching the surface [SSR] is a key parameter in the hydrological and energy cycles of the Earth’s climate” – Romanou et al 2007) because it doesn’t fit their RF paradigm.
The “key” ‘surface forcing’ agent they threw out is far greater than any RF forcing agent at TOA.
This is not an “assessment”, it is self-justification of their fatally flawed RF “concept”. Which explains why their subsequent attribution is a miss-attribution i.e. false.
IPCC AR4 Technical Summary 2.6:
Really? Ohmura 2009 managed quantification and didn’t need a comparison,
+12 W.m-2 (1920 to 2005) x 0.055 = +0.66 K.
SSR explains 20th century warming without recourse to GHGs.
Seems easy enough. Why couldn’t the IPCC do this?
‘Critical assessment of surface incident solar radiation observations collected by SURFRAD, USCRN and AmeriFlux networks from 1995 to 2011’
Kaicun Wang, John Augustine, Robert E. Dickinson (2012)
Abstract
[1] Surface incident solar radiation (Rs) drives weather and climate changes.
1. Introduction
[2] The surface incident solar radiation (Rs) absorbed at the surface drives weather processes through latent and sensible heat fluxes [Wang et al., 2010a, 2010b] and longwave radiation emission [Wang et al., 2005]. It therefore determines the Earth’s weather and climate, and its change results in climate and environmental change [Trenberth and Fasullo, 2010].
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012JD017945/full
# # #
Surface incident solar radiation (Rs, SSR), Romanou et al’s “key parameter”. Thrown out by the IPCC.
Wang et al directly contradict the IPCC:
”[‘surface forcing’] cannot be used to quantitatively compare the effects of different agents on the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change.”
IPCC “assessment” is scientifically fraudulent.
‘Recent regional surface solar radiation dimming and brightening patterns: inter-hemispherical asymmetry and a dimming in the Southern Hemisphere’
N. Hatzianastassiou, C. D. Papadimas, C. Matsoukas, K. Pavlakis, A. Fotiadi, M. Wild, I. Vardavas
(2011)
Abstract
Recent variations in surface solar radiation (SSR) at the beginning of the 21st century (2000–2007) were determined at scales ranging from local/regional to hemispherical/global, on the basis of radiative transfer computations and information from satellites, reanalyses and surface measurements. Under all-sky conditions, in the Northern Hemisphere (NH) there is no clear dimming/brightening signal after 2000, whereas in the SH there is a more clear dimming arising from both increasing clouds and aerosols. Dimming is observed over land and ocean in the Southern Hemisphere (SH), and over oceans in the NH, whereas a slight brightening occurred over NH land. However, opposite tendencies are found even within the same continent, indicating the need to assess SSR changes at regional/local scales apart from hemispherical/global ones.
3. Results
Tendencies of SSR beyond 2000 were examined also on the hemispheric scale, as well as over land and ocean areas separately (Figure 3). The computations for the period 2001–2006, also compared for the sub-periods 2001–2005 and 2002–2006, are summarized in Table I . The selection of these different time periods for the computation and comparison of SSR tendencies was made to ensure the robustness of the computed tendencies, given the relatively short time period covered. The tendencies agree in terms of their sign, but also of inter-hemispherical and land–ocean GDB [Global Dimming Brightening] differences, which strengthens the robustness of the conclusions on GDB. Therefore, the discussion is henceforth focused on the results for the period 2001–2006.
In the Northern Hemisphere (NH) (including land, ocean and coastal areas), SSR has just slightly increased, by 0.17 W m−2 (or 0.028 W m−2 year−1), while it has significantly decreased by 2.88 W m−2 (or 0.48 W m−2 year−1) in the Southern Hemisphere (SH). Thus, it appears that there is an inter-hemispherical difference in GDB, consisting of a slight brightening in the NH against a stronger dimming in the SH. If averaged globally, they yield an overall dimming equivalent to − 1.53 W m−2 (or − 0.26 W m−2 year−1). Hinkelman et al. (2009) reported a dimming in both hemispheres, of about − 0.51 W m −2 year−1. The differences with our results, especially in NH, may be attributed to their shorter time period (1999–2004), which starts and ends earlier than ours thus not including mostly positive SSR anomalies in the NH after 2004 (Figure 3(a)). In addition, the year 2000 is largely characterized by positive SSR anomalies which, if taken into account, result in a dimming of − 0.39 W m−2 year−1 in NH over the period 2000–2007. The overall all-sky dimming beyond 2000 seems to mark a change in the GDB pattern at the dawn of the 21st century, since an overall brightening of 0.15–0.24 W m−2 year−1 occurred from the early 1980s to 2000 (Hatzianastassiou et al., 2005; Pinker et al., 2005; Wild et al., 2005). Our separate analysis over land and oceans indicates the existence of opposite tendencies in SSR. Thus, SSR exhibits an increase (brightening) of 0.44 W m−2 (0.07 W m−2 year−1) over NH-land, while over oceans it has decreased by 0.75 W m−2 (−0.125 W m−2 year−1).
The situation is different in the SH, where SSR has decreased over both land and oceans, but more over oceans (−3.67 W m−2 or − 0.61 W m−2 year−1) than land (−1.35 W m−2 or − 0.225 W m−2 year−1). Globally, SSR has decreased over land by 0.455 W m−2 (or − 0.076 W m−2 year−1), while over oceans it has decreased by 2.21 W m−2 (or − 0.37 W m−2 year−1). Note that from the above tendencies, only those for SH oceans and SH land plus oceans are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
Figure 3.
Time series of deseasonalized anomalies of monthly downward surface solar radiation (SSR) averaged over land (green lines), ocean (blue lines) and land + ocean (black lines) regions (also including coastal areas) of the Northern Hemisphere (a) and Southern Hemisphere (b), over the period 2001–2006. GDB magnitudes [Δ(SSR)] over the period 2001–2006 are also given
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/asl.361/asset/image_n/nfig003.jpg?v=1&t=irojgkt8&s=5fc7cd3825667d4cb9f75054b67481aebea9fb97
Table I.
Tendencies of surface solar radiation (W m−2) computed over the periods 2001–2006 (reference), 2001–2005, 2002–2006, and March 2000–February 2007. Results are given separately over land, ocean and land + ocean (including coastal areas, i.e. ISSCP pixels with both land and ocean). Bold numbers indicate statistically significant trends at the 95% confidence level. Yellow- and blue-coloured cells indicate same and opposite tendencies compared to the reference period (2001–2006).
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/asl.361/asset/image_n/ntbl001.jpg?v=1&t=iroiev63&s=34832ba0539bbc35f628468dd3fa4532797aa128
4. Conclusions
Previous studies identified changing points in the evolution of GDB over the last two decades of 20th century, namely around 1990 and 2000. In this study, we updated GDB beyond 2000 by extending the time period into this century and obtained the analyses of SSR variations over various world regions, as well as at global/hemispherical/continental scales or station sites, also providing some insight into their possible causes. The SSR variations were obtained here all over the globe, for the first time at the local (pixel-level) scale, based on 2.5° × 2.5° analysis.
An overall global dimming (based on coastal, land and ocean pixels) is found to have taken place on the earth for all-sky conditions, from 2001 to 2006, arising from a stronger solar dimming in the SH (ΔSSR = − 2.88 W m−2 or − 0.48 W m−2 year−1) and a slight brightening in NH (ΔSSR = 0.17 W m−2 or 0.028 W m−2 year−1), thus exhibiting an interhemispherical difference. This inter-hemispherical difference in post-2000 GDB, which has not been reported in previous studies, translates to a substantial difference in the magnitude of the decreasing SSR tendencies over oceans, and even to a different sign of tendencies over land, with Δ(SSR) = − 0.225 W m−2 year−1 (dimming) in the SH and Δ(SSR) = 0.07 W m−2 year−1 (brightening) in the NH. Moreover, the regional patterns have a remarkably patchy spatial structure, with opposite SSR tendencies in neighbouring areas, even within the same continents, as for example in Europe, USA, South America, Africa and Asia. The model-computed tendencies of SSR are supported to a large degree by surface-station measurements taken from the GEBA and BSRN networks, which strengthens the validity of the post-2000 GDB findings of this study.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asl.361/full
# # #
>”brightening over New Zealand……..Liley, 2009″
Brightening means more SSR.
Liley B. 2009. New Zealand dimming and brightening. [See next comment]
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011401/full
>”Table I. Tendencies of surface solar radiation (W m−2) computed over the periods […….]
March 2000–February 2007.”
-0.57 SH land
-5.62 SH ocean
-3.38 SH
“Drives weather and climate changes” – Wang et al (2012).
IPCC don’t think so.
>”Liley B. 2009. New Zealand dimming and brightening. [See next comment]”
‘New Zealand dimming and brightening’
J. B. Liley (2009)
Abstract
[1] Recent papers in the international literature on global dimming found a mixed pattern in data from New Zealand. Closer analysis of pyranometer data from four long-term sites shows a downward trend up to 1990, with a reversal at three of them after that time. How much can be attributed to the direct aerosol effect is uncertain from the pyranometer data, but aerosol optical depth data from Lauder show too little aerosol for this to be a substantial component. A comparison with much longer records of sunshine hours shows that there was a trend of increasing cloudiness to around 1990, and a decline since then, consistent with the global pattern.
2. New Zealand Irradiance
[6] There are few New Zealand climate stations with pyranometer data before 1970. The four with the earliest data are at Auckland (37.0°S, 174.8°E, WMO 931190, Nov 1969), Wellington (41.4°S, 174.9°E, WMO 934370, Jan 1954), Christchurch (43.5°S, 172.5°E, WMO 937800, Jan 1960), and Invercargill (46.4°S, 168.3°E, WMO 938440, Jan 1954).
[7] …………………For comparison with other sites and studies, note that the annual average hourly downwelling short-wave fluxes for the four sites here are: Auckland, 172 W m−2; Wellington, 161 W m−2, Christchurch, 156 W m−2; Invercargill, 142 W m−2.
Table 2. Trends in Daily Irradiance (%/decade)
Station, Pre-1990, Post-1990 [to 2009]
Auckland [2 decades from 1970] −6.4 ± 0.6, [2 decades] +0.4 ± 0.6
Wellington [3.6 decades from 1954] −1.0 ± 0.3, [2 decades] +1.3 ± 0.7
Christchurch [3 decades from 1960] −1.9 ± 0.4, [2 decades] −0.6 ± 0.6
Invercargill [3.6 decades] from 1954 −2.6 ± 0.3. [2 decades] +0.1 ± 0.6
[Invercargill -2.6 %/decade x 3.6 decades = 9.36% x 142 W.m-2 = -13.3 W.m-2 total]
[Wellington -1.0 %/decade x 3.5 decades = 3.5% x 167 W.m-2 = -5.8 W.m-2 total]
[Wellington +1.3 %/decade x 2.0 decades = 2.6% x 167 W.m-2 = +4.3 W.m-2 total]
[Christchurch -0.6 %/decade x 2.0 decades = -1.2% x 156 W.m-2 = -1.9 W.m-2 total]
6. Pacific Islands
[42] The NIWA Climate Database also holds sunshine records for many islands in the South Pacific. Table 7 shows these data, and New Zealand’s Raoul, Chatham, and Campbell Islands, analyzed as above.
8. Conclusions
[49] Analysis of New Zealand pyranometer data for the few sites with a long record shows general agreement with trends described in the global dimming and brightening literature. The performance and calibration stability of standard pyranometers is barely adequate for observing small changes in mean radiation over decades, and this makes it very difficult to reliably distinguish the direct effect of aerosols in clear sky data. The clear skies over New Zealand, even at a time when global dimming was most pronounced, suggest that observed changes in pyranometer data for clear skies are indeed a calibration artifact.
[50] Nevertheless, 100 years of sunshine hour records tell a story of changing cloudiness on decadal time scales, over a region larger than that represented by New Zealand. Explaining, or better, predicting such changes is an important challenge for models of Earth’s radiative balance.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD011401/full
# # #
Obviously SSR over NZ land does not drive NZ temperature. Ocean SSR and SST, wind direction etc, have more influence by far.
But consider SSR from Hatzianastassiou et al above for comparison with Lilley (W.m-2):
+4.30 Wellington 1990 – 2010
-1.90 Christchurch 1990 – 2010
-0.57 SH land 2000 – 2007
-5.62 SH ocean 2000 – 2007
-3.38 SH 2000 – 2007
Wellington is not typical of the SH but Christchurch is (to a degree). In other words, such a small area of land in the middle of the ocean (NZ) is somewhat meaningless in terms of climate drivers.
Frantic Warmist Dr John Fasullo:
And, in the same article,
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/10/climate-scientists-make-a-bold-prediction-about-sea-level-rise
# # #
If audacity was an Olympic event he’d get a gold medal.
Frantic Warmist John Abraham:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/aug/10/climate-scientists-make-a-bold-prediction-about-sea-level-rise
# # #
A “bold prediction” of something that is already supposed to be happening but isn’t happening.
Why is that “bold”?
If their bold prediction is wrong, then will they boldly tell us so, or sweep it under the carpet?
Presumably this is a tacit acknowledgement that SLR isn’t actually accelerating at the moment
More screeching from Redfearn
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk
“Climate science denial” yeah good one
Frantic Phys.org Warmists:
Phys.org , Science X network, August 10, 2016
Greenhouse gases are already having an accelerating effect on sea level rise, but the impact has so far been masked by the cataclysmic 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, according to a new study led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Satellite observations, which began in 1993, indicate that the rate of sea level rise has held fairly steady at about 3 millimeters per year. But the expected acceleration due to climate change is likely hidden in the satellite record because of a happenstance of timing: The record began soon after the Pinatubo eruption, which temporarily cooled the planet, causing sea levels to drop.
The new study finds that the lower starting point effectively distorts the calculation of sea level rise acceleration for the last couple of decades.
The study lends support to climate model projections, which show the rate of sea level rise escalating over time as the climate warms. The findings were published today in the open-access Nature journal Scientific Reports.
“When we used climate model runs designed to remove the effect of the Pinatubo eruption, we saw the rate of sea level rise accelerating in our simulations,” said NCAR scientist John Fasullo, who led the study. “Now that the impacts of Pinatubo have faded, this acceleration should become evident in the satellite measurements in the coming decade, barring another major volcanic eruption.”
Study co-author Steve Nerem, from the University of Colorado Boulder, added: “This study shows that large volcanic eruptions can significantly impact the satellite record of global average sea level change. So we must be careful to consider these effects when we look for the effects of climate change in the satellite-based sea level record.”
The findings have implications for the extent of sea level rise this century and may be useful to coastal communities planning for the future. In recent years, decision makers have debated whether these communities should make plans based on the steady rate of sea level rise measured in recent decades or based on the accelerated rate expected in the future by climate scientists.
The study was funded by NASA, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the National Science Foundation, which is NCAR’s sponsor.
[…]
To investigate, Fasullo, Nerem, and Benjamin Hamlington of Old Dominion University worked to pin down how quickly sea levels were rising in the decades before the satellite record began.
Prior to the launch of the international TOPEX/Poseidon satellite mission in late 1992, sea level was mainly measured using tide gauges. While records from some gauges stretch back to the 18th century, variations in measurement technique and location mean that the pre-satellite record is best used to get a ballpark estimate of global mean sea level.
To complement the historic record, the research team used a dataset produced by running the NCAR-based Community Earth System Model 40 times with slightly different—but historically plausible—starting conditions. The resulting simulations characterize the range of natural variability in the factors that affect sea levels. The model was run on the Yellowstone system at the NCAR-Wyoming Supercomputing Center.
A separate set of model runs that omitted volcanic aerosols—particles spewed into the atmosphere by an eruption—was also assessed. By comparing the two sets of runs, the scientists were able to pick out a signal (in this case, the impact of Mount Pinatubo’s eruption) from the noise (natural variations in ocean temperature and other factors that affect sea level).
“You can’t do it with one or two model runs—or even three or four,” Fasullo said. “There’s just too much accompanying climate noise to understand precisely what the effect of Pinatubo was. We could not have done it without large numbers of runs.”
More>>>>
http://phys.org/news/2016-08-climate-sea.html
# # #
>”When we used climate model runs designed to remove the effect of the Pinatubo eruption, we saw the rate of sea level rise accelerating in our simulations,” – NCAR scientist John Fasullo
We saw it! We saw it! In our model! We saw the acceleration!
>”Now that the impacts of Pinatubo have faded, this acceleration should become evident in the satellite measurements in the coming decade, barring another major volcanic eruption.” – NCAR scientist John Fasullo,
[But now we don’t see it. We’re sad, but we’ll spin to the moon anyway]
We SHOULD see it! We SHOULD see it!
Because we saw it in our model! We see SHOULD see the acceleration!
Next decade! We SHOULD see the acceleration! Next decade! We SHOULD! We SHOULD!
Why aren’t people believing us?
‘Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?’
J. T. Fasullo, R. S. Nerem & B. Hamlington (2016)
Abstract
Global mean sea level rise estimated from satellite altimetry provides a strong constraint on climate variability and change and is expected to accelerate as the rates of both ocean warming and cryospheric mass loss increase over time. In stark contrast to this expectation however, current altimeter products show the rate of sea level rise to have decreased from the first to second decades of the altimeter era. Here, a combined analysis of altimeter data and specially designed climate model simulations shows the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo to likely have masked the acceleration that would have otherwise occurred. This masking arose largely from a recovery in ocean heat content through the mid to late 1990 s subsequent to major heat content reductions in the years following the eruption. A consequence of this finding is that barring another major volcanic eruption, a detectable acceleration is likely to emerge from the noise of internal climate variability in the coming decade.
http://www.nature.com/articles/srep31245
# # #
This is not science. This is speculation.
Fasullo et al
So it’s actually “insight” from tide gauges “coupled” with satellite altimeters.
Beenstock et al found 65% of good quality long-running tide gauges were flat or falling.
That’s “insight” from tide gauges
Herr Thomas of Hot Topic writes:
Yeah who need numbers, maths and logic
So old fashioned
Herr Thomas of Hot Topic had previously stated that he didn’t need to look at my numbers because they must be tosh (by definition) and that he is a maths teacher
Do maths teachers not teach maths anymore? If numbers are not needed, then presumably neither is maths.
Fasullo et al
>”An estimate [speculation #1] of this [speculation #2] near-future [speculation #3] GMSL acceleration [speculation #4]”
Turns out to be “0.12mm yr−2”.
So given Andy’s calcs and my reasoning (?), Fasullo et al’s speculated “acceleration”, which SHOULD be due to begin NEXT decade, is LESS than a 30cm by 2065 scenario and further out anyway.
That’s assuming Fasullo et al multi-speculated scenario ever actually happens of course.
>”More screeching from Redfearn”
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2016/aug/09/why-one-nation-senator-malcolm-roberts-demand-for-empirical-evidence-on-climate-change-is-misleading-bunk
Helpfully providing the hotlink to Malcolm Roberts website:
conscious – The Work of Malcolm Roberts
Protecting Freedom by understanding climate, science and sovereignty
Climate Conscious – Summary
http://www.climate.conscious.com.au/
Andy
>”Presumably this [Fasullo et al] is a tacit acknowledgement that SLR isn’t actually accelerating at the moment”
Fasullo et al:
“…..when the effects of the Mt Pinatubo eruption estimated form the LE are removed (blue), acceleration becomes apparent, even in the present day.”
“….it is unsurprising that acceleration has yet to be detected given the forced response to Pinatubo and the noise of internal climate variability…..”
Yes SLR is accelerating. No it has not yet been detected. This is unsurprising.
The strange logic of CO2-centric climate science.
More on Roberts:
https://theconversation.com/the-galileo-gambit-and-other-stories-the-three-main-tactics-of-climate-denial-63719
from the Lew himself.
Gavin Schmidt’s prediction of a 2016 temperature record:
Gavin Schmidt @ClimateOfGavin
Predicting the 2016 GISTEMP LOTI mean anomaly [About 1.3 C (1.15 – 1.45) ]
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CicqT6wW0AEcVuB.jpg
https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/731599988141248512
# # #
1.3 C anomaly now appears to be > 99% unlikely. Even the 1.15 lower limit looks iffy. LOTI mean to end of June was 1.095 C
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Schmidt will be frantic. There’s still another 6 months of 2015 data to come in.
Lew thinks there are “three main tactics of climate denial”.
Aside from the inane “climate denial” branding, those are:
1) “The necessity of conspiracism”
2) “The Galileo gambit”
3) “The sounds of science”
What a goose.
‘New FOIA’d Documents Show AGs’ #ExxonKnew Campaign Isn’t Even About Exxon — It’s About … Paris?’
August 9, 2016 by Katie Brown, PhD
New documents released today further confirm that the Democratic state attorneys general engaging in climate RICO investigations specifically targeted certain organizations as a means of providing support to the Administration’s climate agenda – not, as the AGs have claimed, because the investigations themselves were meritorious in their own right. In a letter dated March 7 inviting the AGs to join in the March 29 press conference with Al Gore, the attorneys general from New York and Vermont write:
In other words, the #ExxonKnew campaign isn’t really about Exxon at all. Rather, it’s about providing the air support these AGs believed was necessary to hasten the adoption and implementation of policies that were discussed in Paris. As Craig Richardson of E&E Legal put it,
And if the multitude of editorial boards and legal experts coming out against this campaign isn’t enough, a new Rasmussen poll finds that an overwhelming majority of Americans oppose what the AGs are doing:
These are just the latest threads in the unraveling of a political activist campaign. There’s a lot to keep track of, to be sure — so Energy in Depth has put together a timeline which includes everything you need to know:
#EXXONKNEW: THE UNRAVELLING OF AN ACTIVIST CAMPAIGN
http://energyindepth.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Exxon_knew_infographic_v20_linked_2.compressed.pdf
http://energyindepth.org/national/new-foiad-documents-how-ags-exxonknew-campaign-isnt-even-about-exxon-its-about-paris/
# # #
Fantastic timeline.
The AGs are political appointments. The law has been subverted for a cause.
‘Secret Deal Among AGs to Prosecute Climate Change ‘Deniers’ Challenged in Court’
Kevin Mooney / August 08, 2016
By signing a “secrecy pact” with fellow Democrat attorneys general preparing to prosecute climate change skeptics, Rhode Island’s top law enforcement officer jeopardized free speech rights and government transparency laws, according to two legal organizations that have taken him to court.
Rhode Island Attorney General Peter Kilmartin’s tactics in supporting President Barack Obama’s climate change policy violate state law guaranteeing access to public records, the two groups, Energy and Environment Legal Institute and Free Market Environmental Law Clinic, claim in their lawsuit.
If Kilmartin and the other attorneys general prevail in the deal to keep select details secret, the ordinary citizen will be the loser, Chris Horner, a leading critic of climate change orthodoxy, said.
“It will mean that they can create privilege for what are otherwise public records, even when shared with ideological activists and donors, so long as everyone who wants to keep their scheming secret agrees in advance,” Horner told The Daily Signal.
The lawsuit, filed July 27 in Rhode Island Superior Court, calls for Kilmartin, a Democrat, to release records that were not previously disclosed in response to the legal organizations’ request in April.
At issue is a “Climate Change Conference Common Interest Agreement” that, email records show, Kilmartin’s representative signed along with representatives of 16 other state attorneys general.
More>>>>>
http://dailysignal.com/2016/08/08/secret-deal-among-ags-to-prosecute-climate-change-deniers-challenged-in-court/
# # #
>”signing a “secrecy pact” with fellow Democrat attorneys general”
Lew’s “necessity of conspiracism” appears to be necessary for the Democrat attorneys general preparing to prosecute climate change skeptics.
Ship Of Fools “could be in trouble”
Posted on August 10, 2016 by tonyheller
I’v been trying to warn them for a month, but they blocked me and listened to climate fraudsters instead. And then went on a massive drinking binge. I think they could be in serious trouble, because the southerly winds coming in tomorrow will likely compact the ice around them.
http://realclimatescience.com/2016/08/ship-of-fools-could-be-in-trouble/
# # #
‘It’s deja vu all over again’
Latest excuse: ‘Pinatubo eruption masked sea level acceleration in satellite record’
Anthony Watts / August 10, 2016
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/10/latest-excuse-pinatubo-eruption-masked-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/
Comments are fun.
Bryan A August 10, 2016 at 12:42 pm
Funny how this report [Fasullo et al] talks about the Pinatubo eruption in 1991 causing a “Decline” in sea level which is conveniently just before the Satellite Record begins.
Every Sea Level reconstruction I can find, like this one from SkepticalScience here https://www.skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise.htm
shows that the actual fall in sea level happened in 1986 or 87 and was in fact recovering before during and after the eruption.
……..
And this one from the EPA here https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/sea-level also shows the sea level falling around 1986 and then rising with just the slightest of blips around 1992
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/10/latest-excuse-pinatubo-eruption-masked-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/#comment-2275124
# # #
The SkS “rising faster as time goes on” curve (Blue, Church 2008) is no more than a positive inflexion 1920 – 1940.
1991/92.5 is on the trend line (Blue). Prior to that there was below-trend 1984 to 1991 measurements and prior to 1984 there was on-trend measurements, more or less, right back to 1940. After 1992.5 there is a minor drop below the trend 1992.5 to 1997 after which the data goes above trend and back to trend.
Satellite altimetry begins 1992.9595 (Red). This is right at the bottom of the 1992.5 to 1997 drop below trend (Blue).
In other words, satellite altimetry missed on-trend 1991/92.5 measurements. It also missed the on-trend 1940 to 1984 measurements. If satellite altimetry had captured the actual long-term trend prior to 1992.9595, the satellite trend would be much LESS than the current 3.4 mm/yr.
Fasullo et al’s rationale is that had not Pinatubo occurred, the satellite trend (Red) would begin on-trend (Blue) at 1992.9595 rather than below it. There is no justification for that rationale whatsoever.The reason satellite altimetry begins below trend is that it started way too late (unfortunately).
Fasullo et al’s rationale is fatally flawed.
‘Democratic AGs ignore polls, press case against climate skeptics’
By Valerie Richardson – The Washington Times – Tuesday, August 9, 2016
Democratic attorneys general mounted a dogged defense Tuesday of their effort to prosecute climate skeptics amid signs that the 4-month-old campaign is deteriorating into a legal and public relations flop.
With a newly released poll showing an overwhelming majority of voters — including Democrats — oppose the investigation, the coalition of attorneys general pressed on, urging a federal court in Texas to uphold a subpoena filed by Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey against Exxon Mobil.
“No company — no matter how rich or powerful — is above the law,” New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman said in a statement. “Exxon’s lawsuit in Texas is nothing more than an attempt to put its practices beyond the reach of state prosecutors.”
The amicus brief filed in support of the Massachusetts investigation comes with the coalition showing signs of fraying after suffering a series of setbacks.
So far only three of the 17 attorneys general — those in Massachusetts, New York and the Virgin Islands — have acknowledged starting investigations into Exxon or other entities since unveiling AGs United for Clean Power at a March 29 press conference.
Even those probes have run into problems. In June, Ms. Healey placed her investigation on hold, saying she would not enforce the subpoena until the court battle with Exxon was resolved, which could take years, according to a document obtained by E&E Daily.
The Virgin Islands probe all but collapsed in June after Attorney General Claude E. Walker agreed to drop a subpoena issued against Exxon, a month after he said he would withdraw subpoenas of the free market Competitive Enterprise Institute. Both Exxon and the institute had fought the subpoenas.
Meanwhile, Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller has so far refused to sign a common interest agreement allowing the prosecutors to communicate on their probes without disclosing the details to the public.
A January report in the Los Angeles Times said that California Attorney General Kamala Harris is investigating Exxon, but since then, her office has refused to provide details or even confirm that the probe is taking place.
While prosecutors typically refuse to comment on ongoing investigations, the coalition’s critics say the subsequent silence comes as an indication that some Democrats are having second thoughts about their March commitment in the face of fierce opposition.
“This is wrong, and, in the end, will be fully exposed,” said E&E Legal Institute senior fellow Chris Horner after the release of emails last week exposing the common interest agreement. “Perhaps that is why so many of the AGs have already walked away from this abusive campaign. It’s certainly why they are trying to keep it all secret.”
Republicans and free market groups have accused the attorneys general of abusing their prosecutorial authority in order to chill debate and advance an ideological agenda, while a Rasmussen Reports poll released Tuesday showed that 69 percent of likely voters oppose targeting climate skeptics.
“These AGs look very partisan, and I think they’re in a very controversial area here,” said political analyst Floyd Ciruli.
The attorneys general often compare their effort to the state and federal tobacco lawsuits that resulted in enormous settlements against the industry, but Mr. Ciruli said that “we’re nowhere near that, in my opinion, on climate change, either the urgency or necessarily the certainty.”
“You need to have, as with cigarettes, this sense of people dying today, this visceral sense of the connection between something scientifically declared and public policy, and that simply doesn’t exist,” Mr. Ciruli said. “This mainly looks like a witch-hunt to suppress countering views, and that is always very controversial in America.”
At the same time, the Democrat attorneys general have scored some victories. The party agreed in July to add a provision in its platform calling for the Justice Department to investigate “alleged corporate fraud on the part of fossil fuel companies who have reportedly misled shareholders and the public on the scientific reality of climate change.”
New Hampshire Attorney General Joseph Foster signed in April a common interest agreement indicating his decision to join the coalition even though he did not participate in the March press conference, which featured Vice President Al Gore Jr.
In that sense, the attorneys general may be better aligned with the party’s ascendant progressive wing than with Democratic voters as a whole. Only 21 percent of Democrats polled by Rasmussen said they supported prosecuting climate skeptics, while 28 percent said the debate over global warming is not settled.
Exxon is cooperating with the subpoena issued in New York, which has powers exceeding those of other states to investigate financial and shareholder fraud under the Martin Act, according to the motion filed Tuesday.
In Massachusetts, Ms. Healey is investigating whether Exxon and its supporters violated the state’s Consumer Protection Act.
“Like all state attorneys general, Attorney General Healey has the power to investigate potential fraud taking place in Massachusetts, just as I am investigating whether Exxon defrauded New York consumers and investors,” said Mr. Schneiderman.
In their 34-page brief, the attorneys general urged U.S. District Court Judge Ed Kinkeade for the Northern District of Texas to reject Exxon’s effort to block the subpoena, arguing that the company is attempting to use the federal courts to bypass state sovereignty.
“Protecting a state’s citizens from fraud, deception and other improper conduct is a principal and critical state law responsibility of state Attorneys General,” said the brief.
Missing from the amicus brief were three of the original 17 coalition prosecutors: Ms. Harris, Connecticut Attorney General George Jepsen and Virginia Attorney General Mark R. Herring.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/aug/9/democratic-ags-ignore-polls-press-case-against-exx/
# # #
>“You need to have, as with cigarettes, this sense of people dying today, this visceral sense of the connection between something scientifically declared and public policy, and that simply doesn’t exist,”
And you need to have, as with the Scientific Method, a connection between something scientifically declared and an observational basis for the declaration, and that simply doesn’t exist.
And you need to have, as with the Laws of Thermodynamics, a connection between something scientifically declared and a politically-driven scientific declaration, and that simply doesn’t exist.
Just heard Daniel Corbett on One News weather in respect to Dunedin:
That’ll make the Warmists frantic.
On Fasullo et al at WUWT:
rokshox August 10, 2016 at 9:04 am
Wouldn’t a temporarily lowered starting point mean that sea level rise rates are overestimated?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/10/latest-excuse-pinatubo-eruption-masked-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/#comment-2274961
Richard Bond August 10, 2016 at 9:37 am
Exactlly.
Mary Brown August 10, 2016 at 10:42 am
I was thinking the same thing. Lower starting point means Pinatubo is masking an even greater deceleration
[Not quite. rokshox had it right. Fasullo et al acknowledge a deceleration in their paper. Raising the start point means a LESSOR deceleration but also a lessor LINEAR rate]
William Yarber August 10, 2016 at 10:47 am
They’ve got it backwards. Pinatubo temporarily cooled Earth, lowering sea level. A lower starting sea level would accelerate rate of sea level rise. Must be wonderful to be a scientist these days. Remember a line from Beatles song “you can get wrong and think it’s alright”! How did this get past peer review? Silly me!
[A lower starting point would accelerate the LINEAR rate. The lower start point produces a pronounced deceleration which Fasullo et al acknowledge]
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/10/latest-excuse-pinatubo-eruption-masked-sea-level-acceleration-in-satellite-record/#comment-2275045
# # #
Anyone with synapses firing can see the fatal flaw immediately but authors and peer reviewers can’t.
Are the Colorado marijuana laws the problem I wonder.
University of Colorado has the paper up in lights:
New group publication: “Is the detection of accelerated sea level rise imminent?” by Fasullo et al.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Inevitable hyperbole from Chris Mooney:
‘Seas aren’t just rising, scientists say — it’s worse than that. They’re speeding up.’
By Chris Mooney August 10
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/08/10/seas-arent-just-rising-scientists-say-theyre-speeding-up/?hpid=hp_hp-more-top-stories_ee-searise-1000am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.bbc27739e380
These guys tie themselves in knots. They end up fooling themselves with their own convoluted reasoning.
But it grabs headlines via the usual conduits – that’s the main aim. Mission accomplished.
Look, you are putting on weight. Even though the scales haven’t changed, the weight gain is masked by the exercise you are doing.
When you stop that exercise, you will pile on the pounds
I like the
anolagy inalogy inallergy inollergiemetaphor. But kilos, Andy, kilos, not pounds. Get with it,old timer old-timeroldtimer.Not only is there observed and “real” SLR, there’s observed and “real” temperature too:
Observed and eventually expected (“real”) temperature at concurrent CO2 concentration, via Bits of Science
https://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/real-global-temperature-graph-bits-of-science.png?w=836
From – ‘Climate inertia’ by Bart Verheggen August 9, 2016
https://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2016/08/09/climate-inertia/
First comment:
vuurklip Says: August 9, 2016 at 17:41
So, “observed” is not “real”? Oh, the hubris …
Don’t force your satanic metric ways on me mr T
When we get this Brexit thing done, I’ll be lobbying for a return to pounds shillings and pence, too
Re “Observed and eventually expected (“real”)” graph.
Note that the GISTEMP 30-year mean has been projected from 2001 to 2016 (dotted red) i.e. they cannot accept that there was a negative inflexion in the 30-yr mean at 2001 because it doesn’t fit their CO2-driven story.
The projection at 2016 coincides with the peak of the El Nino anomaly. The trajectory of the projection for full year 2016 lies just below Gavin Schmidt’s prediction which is based on the same, erroneous, “long-term trend” reasoning (from upthread):
The GISTEMP LOTI mean to end of June was 1.095 C but still another 6 months of 2016 data to come in.
These guys are in for a rude shock when the 30-yr GISTEMP mean is calculated with full year data for 2016, 2017, 2018 etc. And > 99% likely that Gavin Schmidt will have to swallow a dead rat, eat crow, humble pie, whatever. Credibility zero.
In short, their CO2-bias, and therefore their approach to determining the secular trend (ST), leads them into a fallacy..
Bernard Beauzamy, président de la Société de Calcul Mathématique : « Le phénomène d’élévation du niveau de la mer n’a strictement rien à voir avec le réchauffement climatique.
http://www.kernews.com/bernard-beauzamy-president-societe-calcul-mathematique-phenomene-delevation-du-niveau-mer-na-strictement-rien-voir-rechauffement-climatique/207/
(Rising seas have nothing to do with global warming)
RC,
How do you know?
Dutch “science journalists”, Rolf Schuttenhelm and Stephan Okhuijsen, have got their Toceaninertia curve (orange) wrong too, That’s in this graph from upthread:
Observed and eventually expected (“real”) temperature at concurrent CO2 concentration, via Bits of Science
https://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/real-global-temperature-graph-bits-of-science.png?w=836
Yes, at 2001 they have a 20 year ocean/atmosphere LEAD/LAG. This is at least reasonably correct. But at 2016 they have about a 27 year air temperature LAG.
20 years is probably characteristic but for some unknown reason they seem to think oceanic thermal inertia is extending rapidly, 7 years longer in only 15 years 2001 – 2016. This is dead wrong.They obviously have never heard of the oceanic “time constant” in respect to thermal inertia.
But the “time constant” is not a specific time in years (e.g. 20 years), it is a characteristic range of years (e.g. 20 +/- 10 = 10 – 30 years). So Toceaninertia cannot be a thin line, it must be a range similar to their Tpaleoclimate but of constant width.
Next error is that they assume atmospheric temperature drives ocean heat (rather than ocean heat driving atmospheric heat – think El Nino) because they have extended Toceaninertia (orange) past the 1C anomaly line at 1989. Toceaninertia should STOP at 1989 (1C) i.e. air temperature at 2016 corresponds to ocean heat uptake 27 years earlier.at 1989 (by their Toceaninertia curve – wrong as above and below).
Because they have got ocean-atm heat transfer reversed, they have got the wrong Toceaninertia profile (orange). Their Toceaninertia profile is derived from GISTEMP. This is dead wrong too.
Their Toceaninertia profile should be the OHC curve – not GISTEMP. The OHC curve LEADs air temperature by maybe 10 – 30 years i.e. air temperature response to peak OHC in 2015 will not be until 2025 – 2035 ish. Similarly, air temperature at 2001 was a response to OHC over about 1971 – 1991, 10 – 30 years earlier.
Global Ocean Heat Content
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content700m2000myr.png
OHC over 1971 – 1991, before and since, is a response to solar input (TSI, SSR). So we arrive at the heat transfer sequence:
Sun => Ocean => Atmosphere
Now that Sun input to Ocean is reducing (but only minimally to date in terms of TSI – SSR is the greater forcing), Atmosphere temperatures are being sustained, and will be sustained, by heat stored earlier in Ocean. By about 2025 to 2035, solar input is predicted to decline significantly (?). It remains to be seen what the OHC curve will look like but at some date it MUST peak because solar input is reducing. 2015 might have been peak OHC (I’ve been wrong on this before, could be wrong again).
What all that means for Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen’s 30-yr GISTEMP mean (Tmean, red line) is that Tmean must peak around 2025 – 2035. Given the “adjustments” to OHC by Josh Willis, Tmean may peak sooner.It looks that way right now.
Thus the upside down world of CO2-centric thinking and Dutch “science journalists”.
RT
>”How do you know?” [These guys are in for a rude shock when the 30-yr GISTEMP mean is calculated with full year data for 2016, 2017, 2018 etc.]
Easy to see.
Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen assume a 30-yr GISTEMP mean (Tmean, red line) 2001 – 2016 based on CO2 rise because there’s not enough data to calculate the actual profile (15 years short). At 2016 their 30 yr Tmean is at the TOP of the GISTEMP observations at the El Nino Peak i.e. there is NO temperature data whatsoever to support that CO2-based assumption.
Their 2016 assumption is about 1.2 C anomaly. Problem with that is (from above):
Worse, there’s a La Nina building that will mean cooling over the next couple of years. So by 2018 temperatures should be back to ENSO-neutral which, in 2013, was 0.65:
Annual
2013 0.65 ENSO-neutral
2014 0.74
2015 0.87
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estimates_based_on_Land_and_Ocean_Data/graph.txt
In other words, the data in June 2016 is already well below their assumed 30 yr mean at 2016 and will be even lower by 2018 after a La Nina, maybe 0.65 vs 1.2+.
******************************************************************************************
Schmidt predicts a 1.3 C anomaly for 2016 (plus or minus). Which I thought at first was a little more than Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen’s assumption. But I’ve just seen that Schmidt’s graph uses a “Pre-industrial baseline (1880-1889). This is NOT the GISTEMP LOTI baseline.
Schmidt’s graph has 2015 at 1.1 C. GISS LOTI data sheet has 0.87 C for 2015. Monthly data confirms 0,87:
Monthly
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Schmidt’s 2016 prediction is 0.2 C higher than 2015. So from those LOTI data sheets 0.87 + 0.2 = 1.07 C for 2016. This is only a fraction below the YTD mean (1.095) with 6 months of data still to come in and La Nina cooling.
Schmidt is saying “> 99% likely to be a new record” 1.07 2016 vs 0.87 2015. Currently 1.095 to June but there’s still another 6 months of relatively cooler temperatures to come in for 2016 (maybe a blip up for June but minimal). Temperatures will be well down by the end of the year because they are plummeting from the February peak:
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
2016 114 133 129 109 93 79
0.54 C drop in 4 months Feb to Jun. Only another 0.23 C drop in 6 months and the 2016 mean would equal the 2015 mean (0.87). Remember, ENSO-neutral is about 0.65 and conditions will cross ENSO positive to negative this year i.e. neutral at some point before the end of the year.
Schmidt’s “> 99% likely to be a new record” just does not look credible.
Roy Spencer caught himself out predicting a 2016 record too:
Record Warm 2016? What a Difference One Month Makes
July 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/07/record-warm-2016-what-a-difference-one-month-makes/
Now in his UAH updates he is including a section on the possibility, or not, of a record warm year.
UAH Global Temperature Update for July, 2016: +0.39 deg. C
August 1st, 2016 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2016/08/uah-global-temperature-update-for-july-2016-0-39-deg-c/
99% likely to be a new record” 2016 vs 2015
Roy Spencer says it is “unlikely” to be a new record 2016 vs 1998.
Should be
[Gavin Schmidt says it is] “>99% likely to be a new record” 2016 vs 2015
Roy Spencer says it is “unlikely” to be a new record 2016 vs 1998.
>”Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen assume a 30-yr GISTEMP mean (Tmean, red line) 2001 – 2016 based on CO2 rise because there’s not enough data to calculate the actual profile (15 years short). At 2016 their 30 yr Tmean is at the TOP of the GISTEMP observations at the El Nino Peak i.e. there is NO temperature data whatsoever to support that CO2-based assumption.”
There will have to be as much data ABOVE their 2016 1.2C 30 yr mean assumption 2016 – 2031 as there was BELOW it 2001 – 2016.
I wish them all the luck in the world with that but not a good start.
Similar with the UKMO’s 5 yr “decadal” forecast:
UKMO: Decadal forecast Figure 3
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
That wont be worth an imperial tuppence by 2018.
Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen’s 30 yr Tmean tracks Foster and Rahmstorf’s model residual:
Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen
Tmean:30-year mean observed temperature (NASA GISS)
https://ourchangingclimate.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/real-global-temperature-graph-bits-of-science.png?w=836
Foster and Rahmstorf state (paper below):
Foster and Rahmstorf
Figure 8. Average of all five adjusted data sets.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/downloadFigure/figure/erl408263f8
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) was cited by IPCC AR5 WG1 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution:
‘Global temperature evolution 1979–2010’
Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf (2011)
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/6/4/044022/meta;jsessionid=86AA6579D0351E8CD9C3B55137421FB6.c3.iopscience.cld.iop.org
In other words, all of Foster and Rahmstorf’s data manipulation can be replicated simply by projecting a 30-year running mean as per Schuttenhelm and Okhuijsen.
Gavin Schmidt has also compiled a “corrected” GISTEMP series and Grant Foster has revised the Foster and Rahmstorf model. You can see a comparison between the two here:
‘Correcting for more than just el Niño’
Grant Foster | January 29, 2016
https://tamino.wordpress.com/2016/01/29/correcting-for-more-than-just-el-nino/#more-8167
Thus the CO2-centric view of GMST is basically just a projection of the 30-yr mean. This is a fallacy as both the ongoing additional data and sophisticated signal analysis clearly reveal. CO2-centric thinkers all miss the turn of the century inflexion in the data trajectory. They’ll see it eventually but it will take time – lots of time.
Interesting going back through the Open Mind comment thread above in January (‘Correcting for more than just el Niño’).
Aside from El Nino heat discussion, of varying understanding, the thread inevitably moves to the 1970s. Remember, Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf “removed” the effect of VOLCANIC aerosols in their model and same with Foster’s revision they are discussing:
Following,
Warmists more Frantic.
Meme du Jour at “Skeptical” Science:
‘Climate inertia’ – by Bart Verheggen, 11 August 2016
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-inertia.html
Also,
‘Climate scientists make a bold prediction about sea level rise’- by John Abraham, 10 August 2016
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-bold-prediction-slr.html