Uncertainty surrounding the extent of future climate change could be dramatically reduced by studying year-on-year global temperature fluctuations, new research has shown. A team of scientists from the University of Exeter and the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology has pioneered a new process to reduce uncertainty around climate sensitivity – the expected long-term global warming if atmospheric carbon dioxide is stabilised at double pre-industrial levels. While the standard ‘likely’ range of climate sensitivity has remained at 1.5-4.5°C for the last 25 years the new study, published in leading scientific journal Nature, has reduced this range by around 60 per cent. The research team believe that by dramatically reducing the range of climate sensitivity, scientists will be able to have a much more accurate picture of long-term changes to the Earth climate. Lead-author Professor Peter Cox from the University of Exeter said: “You can think of global warming as the stretching of a spring as we hang weights from it, and climate sensitivity as related to the strength of the spring. “To relate the observed global warming to climate sensitivity you need to know the amount of weight being added to the spring, which climate scientists call the ‘forcing’, and also how quickly the spring responds to added weight.
Unfortunately, we know neither of these things very well”. The new research made their breakthrough by moving their focus away from global warming trends to date, and instead studying variations in yearly global temperatures.
Co-author Professor Chris Huntingford, from the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, explained: “Much of climate science is about checking for general trends in data and comparing these to climate model outputs, but year-to-year variations can tell us a lot about longer-term changes we can expect in a physical system such as Earth’s climate.” Mark Williamson, co-author of the study and a postdoctoral researcher at the University of Exeter, carried out the calculations to work-out a measure of temperature fluctuations that reveals climate sensitivity. This metric of temperature fluctuations can also be estimated from climate observations, allowing the model line and the observations to be combined to estimate climate sensitivity. Using this approach, the team derive a range of climate sensitivity to doubling carbon dioxide of 2.8+/-0.6°C, which reduces the standard uncertainty in climate sensitivity (of 1.5-4.5°C) by around 60%. Mark said: “We used the simplest model of how the global temperature varies, to derive an equation relating the timescale and size of the fluctuations in global temperature to the climate sensitivity. We were delighted to find that the most complex climate models fitted around that theoretical line”.
Explaining the significance of the results, Professor Cox added: “Our study all but rules-out very low or very high climate sensitivities, so we now know much better what we need to. Climate sensitivity is high enough to demand action, but not so high that it is too late to avoid dangerous global climate change”.
The research was supported by the European Research Council (‘ECCLES’ project), the EU Horizon 2020 Programme (‘CRESCENDO’ project), and the UK’s Natural Environment Research Council. The paper: Emergent constraint on equilibrium climate sensitivity from global temperature variability. Peter M. Cox, Chris Huntingford & Mark S.
Williamson Abstract Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) remains one of the most important unknowns in climate change science. ECS is defined as the global mean warming that would occur if the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2) concentration were instantly doubled and the climate were then brought to equilibrium with that new level of CO 2. Despite its rather idealized definition, ECS has continuing relevance for international climate change agreements, which are often framed in terms of stabilization of global warming relative to the pre-industrial climate. However, the ‘likely’ range of ECS as stated by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has remained at 1.5–4.5 degrees Celsius for more than 25 years. The possibility of a value of ECS towards the upper end of this range reduces the feasibility of avoiding 2 degrees Celsius of global warming, as required by the Paris Agreement. Here we present a new emergent constraint on ECS that yields a central estimate of 2.8 degrees Celsius with 66 per cent confidence limits (equivalent to the IPCC ‘likely’ range) of 2.2–3.4 degrees Celsius.
Our approach is to focus on the variability of temperature about long-term historical warming, rather than on the warming trend itself. We use an ensemble of climate models to define an emergent relationship between ECS and a theoretically informed metric of global temperature variability. This metric of variability can also be calculated from observational records of global warming, which enables tighter constraints to be placed on ECS, reducing the probability of ECS being less than 1.5 degrees Celsius to less than 3 per cent, and the probability of ECS exceeding 4.5 degrees Celsius to less than 1 per cent.
Here’s how I see it. They seem to overlook one very important thing. In their method, they look at “variations in yearly global temperatures”.
They are assuming that the envelope created by the variations will reveal an underlying trend, and from that, a measure of climate sensitivity by comparing it to model output. Their analogy in the press release, using a weighted spring reveals their thinking as believing Earths climate as being a “constrained system”. Earth’s climate does have some constraints, but it also has chaos, and the chaotic nature of the myriad of forces in Earth’s atmosphere is often pushed beyond what is considered a normal for such constraints. Chaos itself becomes a “forcing”.
It is why we get occasional extremes of weather and climate. Edward Lorentz was the first to describe the chaotic nature of the atmosphere with his “butterfly effect” paper in 1972. Lorenz describes the evidence that the atmosphere is inherently unstable as “overwhelming”. It’s that instability that they are trying to quantify, and put an envelope around, but it is a fools errand in my opinion becuase there’s so much noise in that chaos.
To see why, have a look at this presentation from Stephens et al. That team asks: “Is Earth’s climate system constrained”? Their answer is that it is, – The reflected energy from Earth is highly regulated & this regulation by clouds. The most dramatic example of this appears in hemispheric symmetry of reflected solar radiation – Hemispheric OLR also appears regulated by clouds but.
Stephens et al also uses the CMIP5 models and say this about them: – Models don’t have the same behavior as the observed Earth – they lack the same degree of regulation and symmetry. Does this really matter? Yes, the problem is clouds. And as most anyone knows in climatology, models don’t do clouds well.
If you do a search of the literature you’ll find statements suggesting clouds limit warming, and clouds enhance warming. There’s no good agreement of what affect clouds actually have had on long term climate trends. But the key component of clouds, water vapor, has been revealing as a primary forcing as our presentation at AGU16 demonstrated: In the Cox et al 2018 paper, they say” “ the emergent relationship from the historical runs and observational constraint can be combined to provide an emergent constraint on ECS.” On the face of it, that “seems” reasonable, however, the flaw here is that they are doing this: “We use an ensemble of climate models to define an emergent relationship.” First, making an average of model output also averages their error along with their predictions. And if models don’t do clouds well, and “ Models don’t have the same behavior as the observed Earth – they lack the same degree of regulation and symmetry.” and because they are comparing to the highly biased and adjusted surface temperature record for confirmation, then all Cox et al is doing is making a classical statistical blunder of “correlation is not causation”. They are looking for forcing in the surface temperature record for confirmation of the models, but the surface temperature record is really highly dependent on clouds as well as being highly adjusted. It’s has a wide envelope of base noise from “chaos” creating weather extremes. This paper in 2013 says this about CMIP5 and clouds: “Despite a variety of discrepancies in the simulated cloud structures, a universal feature is that in all models, the cloud parameterization errors dominate, while the large-scale and the covariation errors are secondary.
This finding confirms the deficiency in the current state of knowledge about the governing mechanisms for subgrid cloud processes” Really, in my view, all they have done is to plot the envelope of possible values, then constrain it (figure 4A), and come up with a new ECS average based on that assumed constraint. Figure 4 Sensitivity of the emergent constraint on ECS to window width.
A, Central estimate and 66% confidence limits. The thick black bar shows the minimum uncertainty at a window width of 55 yr and the red bar shows the equivalent ‘likely’ IPCC range of 1.5–4.5 K. B, Probabilities of ECS 4 K (red line and symbols) and ECS. Figure 1 Historical global warming. A, Simulated change in global temperature from 16 CMIP5 models (coloured lines), compared to the global temperature anomaly from the HadCRUT4 dataset (black dots).
The anomalies are relative to a baseline period of 1961–1990. The model lines are colour-coded, with lower-sensitivity models (λ 1 W m−2 K−1) shown by green lines and higher-sensitivity models (λ. There is no chaos, just various noise and large scale variables all interacting in a way complex enough that people shrug and call it chaotic.
But if all variables, and how they interact with each other, are known, that’s when chaos becomes ordered and predictable. Their climate sensitivity to CO2 is still too high.
It’s pretty obvious that without 1987/1998/2016 scale El Ninos, there is no warming, and the 2016 El Nino was probably the last big one for a few decades if the PDO cycle is any indication. The 2016 El Nino could be a lot like the 1940 one, the last major belch of heat from the Pacific before 30 years of conditions that favor cooling/heat going into the equatorial Pacific. Actually not true in the mathematically precise sense of chaos discovered by Ed Lorentz. Any nonlinear dynamic system behaves chaotically in the math sense. Nonlinear just means feedbacks. Dynamic means those feedbacks are not instantaneous. Clouds are an example of both.
Nontheless, we know that there are at least two strange attractors in Earths present geological configuration (since closure of Panama isthmus)—glacials and interglacials. The holocene climate proxy wobbles are not just noisy in the statistical sense, they also are chaotic around the interglacial attractor. Non linear absolutely does not mean ‘just feedbacks’. I am surprised at you Ristvan Non linear means non linear, such that the sum of the effect of many partial differential equations does not equal the sum of the parts. Non linear means there IS NO GENERAL SOLUTION to the problem of integrating partial differential equations to arrive at a prediction. You have NO CHOICE but to do stepwise integrations on a vast data set using a computer program.
Non linear also implies chaos is likely to be present. Non linear also implies edge effects. You aim to hit the President. A 5mph wind means you miss him, a 0 mph wind means you hit him, a 2.5mph wind means he is what? Anyway there is an issue with this paper, and that it is the underlying assumption that it’s CO2, and not something else – like the inherently chaotic nature of climate – driving ‘climate change’.
Nonlinear just means feedbacks. The easiest way to make a system more linear is to add negative feedback. Sygic gps maps download for windows ce emulator. Adding positive feedback will make it a lot less linear. Given the relative stability of the planet’s climate, it’s likely that such feedbacks as exist are negative.
For CAGW theory to work, positive feedbacks are necessary. The researchers suggest that most climate models don’t account for the feedback mechanisms that make the correlation between temperature rise and sea level rise non-linear. Changes to circulation of warm and cold water in the Atlantic due to ice melting in Greenland and Antartica could have unanticipated effects, according to the study. Without positive feedback there is no cause for alarm. No, I understand what ‘chaos’ is in chaos theory.
What people seem to confuse is that it is not just a dynamic system that is very sensitive to initial conditions, it means that the system becomes unpredictable after x amount due to imprecision. And notice how in my OP I was referring to the real climate system, not the climate models, that’s my entire point of posting this about chaos. Chaos applies to the attempt at modeling reality, it does not apply to reality itself. In the case of climate models, I think they suffer more from our ignorance of the interplays within the system (inaccuracy) than they do from imprecision of the initial conditions.
Here are a couple links claiming low CO2 sensitivity: Recent CO2 Climate Sensitivity Estimates Continue Trending Towards Zero “A recently highlighted paper published by atmospheric scientists Scafetta et al., (2017) featured a graph (above) documenting post-2000 trends in the published estimates of the Earth’s climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 concentrations (from 280 parts per million to 560 ppm). The trajectory for the published estimates of transient climate response (TCR, the average temperature response centered around the time of CO2 doubling) and equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS, the temperature response upon reaching an equilibrium state after doubling) are shown to be declining from an average of about 3°C earlier in the century to below 2°C and edging towards 1°C for the more recent years.” The 75 papers here: 75 Papers Find Extremely Low CO2 Climate Sensitivity It seems like a lot of people have raked over this topic quite a bit already. Read Piers Forster’s praise for this new paper as he stepped through the methodology and result. Thought it made no sense. This post confirms that suspicion. All the energy budget observational approaches since 2013 are pegging ECS between 1.5 and 1.8. That also comports with net feedback above CO2 alone at Bode f0.25-0.3 rather than the 0.65 needed for ECS of 3.
Easy analysis. Implicit in the IPCC AR4 ECS analysis is water vapor at f=0.5 and the residual (mostly clouds) at 0.15. In reality, as Wills has repeatedly shown, clouds are f=0. And as other posts have shown, water vapor is overstated because precipitation is understated in CMIP5 except for INM-CR4. Water vapor f at 0.25-0.3 matches observationally derived ECS. A good example paper is Lewis and Curry 2014.
Climate sensitivity is the same as a feedback loop. Mechanical and electronic systems with feedback loops are highly unstable. It seems highly unlikely that the earth, which has been around for a long time, and habitable by plants and animals, is dominated by climate feedback loops – either warming or cooling. Systems dominated by feedback don’t tend to be very stable. The obvious answer is that the Earth has a very low climate sensitivity (. It might be that nobody knows how clouds behave, either warming or cooling the planet. Let me give my personal best guess – negative feedback loop.
When the planet warms the clouds cause cooling and when the planet cools the clouds cause warming. Why would I say such a thing?
1) There are negative feedback loops all around us. Everywhere we look in nature there seem to be negative feedback loops, why should this one be any different? 2) The earth has been incredibly stable climatically for a long long time.
Even when we have had major asteroid events or cataclysmic volcanic activity the climate moves back to “normal.” That has to be from a feedback mechanism that returns the system to its normal operating state. Clouds are the only thing big enough to qualify. Basically my suggestion would be to assume the system is engineered, then check the system architecture. I would bet you will get a lot closer to the truth than assuming it is a random mess set to fall apart as soon as we make even the slightest perturbation to the system.
Serial Key Generator is application specially designed for software developers to help protect your applications by serial key. License Model: Free to try. Software license key generator.
No, it means the warming is almost undetectable so far. But not zero. Satellites prove that independently. People really should read Zeke Hausfather’s explanation on tobs in Climate Etc. Protocol test harness. Two three years back.
Tobs is definitely necessary, but in my opinion there is a big risk it is being used to inflate otherwise small trend due to confirmation bias. As I said in thread earlier today, the changepoint analysis might detect shelter changes like scheduled washing of them as a breakpoint, which would cause some drifting bias. I lack imagination on how one coukd detect that, of course that predicts there are more upwards trend anomaly steps than downward steps, which is a testable prediction. “Chaos” is just a spiffy word that means “order so complex that there’s little chance in hell us humans will ever comprehend it”. So, it is a short, fancy word for “incomprehension” or the chosen markers, thereof, that we might call “forecasts”. And the average of multiple runs of incomprehension is supposed to be a BETTER rendition of incomprehension???
The average of chaos is, at best, chaos — at worst, undefinable. I might have said something useful there. Sometimes I can’t tell until weeks later, when I read what I wrote again with insight gained during the interval from first writing to later reading. My understanding is that “chaotic” systems in the Lorenz sense are not random or indeterminate.
They are produced by systems of differential equations (e.g. The output of these systems is completely deterministic in that the same input at t=0 will always produce the same output at t=n, but the output looks chaotic because its displays a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions”. Very small input differences can cause very large output differences. A butterfly flapping its wings at Beijing may cause a hurricane in Florida. The sensitivity of chaotic systems can be such that the effects of changes in conditions that are less than the standard error of their measurement can cause dramatically different results.
“Abandon hope, all ye who enter”. Reply to Leo Smith says: January 22, 2018 at 12:50 pm Bingo. As a simple example. A few years ago, modern predictions of maximum ocean wave height were thought to be explainable by linear modeling. At that time, linear modeling indicated that “rouge waves”(in the range of 30 meters in height) being reported by mariners could not exist.
It was said such waves were scientifically impossible. These “scientific” predictions were dashed when it was demonstrated that 25-30 meter high waves existed off the coast of South Africa. Linear theory was initially “salvaged” when the South African waves could be explained by modeling the interactions between waves and strong currents in the area. Then, a couple of years ago, incidents were documented in the North Atlantic that not could be explained by current augmentation using the liner modeling. Subsequent German satellites monitoring the North Atlantic later confirmed the presence of 25-30 meter high waves in the North Atlantic. Since that time it has been observed that the wave patterns the Germans discovered in the North Atlantic are strikingly similar to patterns observed in quantum wave theory. So, it’s back to the drawing board.
Maybe in linear modeling of ocean waves will be salvaged again, or maybe not. But, from my perspective, the bottom line is that even when the best of us believe that we’ve have “it all figured out” we’re later confronted with contrary evidence and compelled to admit we were wrong. And maybe admit the world is a bit more complicated than we once firmly believed. I have yet to see any credible evidence that TCS is greater than 1C/(2xCO2. See Christy and McNider 1994 and 2017. Their calculated TCS of 1.1C (+/- tolerances) attributes ALL modern warming in the satellite era to increased atmospheric CO2, allowing for major (century-scale) volcanoes.
For clarity, they included NO natural warming, which obviously does exist. That 1.1C is maximum TCS, whereas actual TCS is probably less than 1C, and possibly much less. There is no catastrophic global warming crisis. I have yet to see any credible evidence that TCS is greater than ZERO.
No correlation whatsoever in the paleoclimate record on geologic time scales (geocarb), PLUS significant episodes of anti-correlation that simply wouldn’t be possible if there WERE any “climate sensitivity” to CO2 levels. On shorter time scales where a correlation does exist (ice core reconstructions), it is exactly in REVERSE, i.e., TEMPERATURE drives CO2 level, not the other way around, since CO2 level FOLLOWS temperature changes, up AND down, with a similar time lag. PLUS temperatures always begin their DECLINE when CO2 levels ARE AT THEIR HIGHEST – AND are STILL RISING, which again underscores the complete lack of any CO2 influence on temperature. CO2 induced climate catastrophe is 20-21st Century mythology, nothing more. It will leave a stain on the field of science as bad as those left by Lysenkoism and Eugenics. “AGW is not” – there is more evidence to disprove CAGW, for example: The mainstream climate debate is essentially an argument about the magnitude of Climate Sensitivity (TCS or ECS) to increasing atmospheric CO2: Global warming alarmists say TCS is greater than or equal to about 3C/(2xCO2), which is false extremist nonsense, for which there is no credible evidence; Global warming skeptics say TCS is less than or equal to about 1C/(2xCO2), which is so low that there is no real global warming crisis. On January 31, 2008 (now ten years ago), I published that the rate of change of atmospheric CO2, that is “dCO2/dt” changes contemporaneously with atmospheric temperature, so that its integral CO2 lags temperature by 9 months in the modern data record.
In fact, atmospheric CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, from the above 9 month lag for ENSO cycles to the 800 year lag inferred in the ice core data, for much longer cycles. Paper at Excel sheet at IF CO2 were the primary driver of global temperature, as the warming alarmists allege, then CO2 would lead temperature at all time scales, and not lag it. Richard Feynman called this principle “Causality”. In layman’s terms, “the future cannot cause the past” (at least in this space/time continuum).:-) This does not prove that CO2 has NO impact on temperature, but it DOES mean that this impact of C02 on temperature is very small and not at all catastrophic. TCS must be very low, probably much less than 1C/(2xCO2).
It is apparent that temperature significantly drives CO2, and it is obvious that temperature drives CO2 more than CO2 drives temperature. If it were otherwise, this clear dCO2/dt vs.
Temperature signal and the resulting 9-month-lag-of-CO2-after-temperature would not exist. This does not preclude other drivers of CO2 such as fossil fuel combustion, deforestation, other land use changes, etc. – this last sentence is the one most people ignore when they argue about my conclusion – not all increasing CO2 is necessarily caused by increasing temperature, and yet the clear signal of dCO2/dt vs temperature survives loud and clear – not only in the satellite era, but all the way back to the origin of quality CO2 data in 1958, and I suggest long before then.
Humlum et al reached similar conclusions in 2013 here: “Highlights: – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature. – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. – Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature. – Changes in ocean temperatures explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980. – Changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.” I suggest that the global warming alarmists could not be more wrong. These are the true facts, which are opposite to their alarmist claims: 1. CO2 is plant food, and greater atmospheric CO2 is good for natural plants and also for agriculture. 2. Earth’s atmosphere is clearly CO2-deficient and the current increase in CO2 (whatever the causes) is beneficial.
3. Increased atmospheric CO2 does not cause significant global warming – regrettable because the world is too cold and about to get colder, imo. Regards to all, Allan. I think this is the real money quote “Our study all but rules-out very low or very high climate sensitivities, so we now know much better what we need to. Climate sensitivity is high enough to demand action, but not so high that it is too late to avoid dangerous global climate change. What they really needed was a paper that indicates that 1) It’s still a problem AND 2) It’s not too late to act. As many papers from the 1990’s, 2000’s have already had their “Too Late” thersholds crossed All the Arctic Ice will vanish in 2000, 2002, 2007, 2012, 2017 etc. And the climate will pass a dangerous tipping point.
It MUST STILL be a problem BUT CAN’T be too late to act. While there has been an ongoing debate on this in the public media, with arguments of very short time available for action, I wonder if there are scientific reviews on how exactly different scientists have described the time window to act. Many prominent scientists have expressed their opinion informally, but I think much less statements like that are expressed in the scientific literature. Are there any attempts to collect them together showing how the ‘date of doom’ has changed?
Global warming art, anyone? Am I missing something! What about the spread, quantity and quality of the historic data available and used covering all areas of the globe since the pre-industrial age? It seems to me that that is far more critical when attempting to establish any such sensitivity! The photograph above showing cavemen lighting a fire is hilarious if you consider this precautionary principle! Imagine if the warmists were around then and they managed to stop any attempts of man to make fire for fear of burning out a cave, or decimating a forest or killing of the flora and fauna that the cavemen totally depended upon for food! In such a case, what alternative would the human race then have had to stay alive, keep warm in the Ice Ages and develop!
Our study all but rules-out very low or very high climate sensitivities It doesn’t rule out very low sensitivities at all. Global temperatures have been only showing about 0.15 c per decade increase and this over century equals the very low sensitivity at 1.5c Even if all this warming was blamed on humans it still falls at very low sensitivity. The fact being the warming is not all caused by humans and natural cycles have at least contributed towards this. There would had been no pause if natural events had no influence at all. The pause on its own hinted humans had no more than 50% influence.
BUT, The AMO and ENSO has been responsible for this change so there is no where human warming fits in. Even with the bias confirmation of adjusting data to match more closely models, increasing warming when it failed to materialise. The AMO if continues similar to past cycles will fit two negative phases during this century, so there will be no chance of even representing the last century. The fiddling/faking of data with HADCRUT, GISS/NOAA will only get worse to hide the lack of future warming. With only one warm phase in future this century, there can only be about 0.4c increase with honest observation data set. The IPCC published the exact same range of values for the climate sensivity of CO2 in their first report that they publiahed in their last report.
So for more than two decades of effort they have learned nothing that would allow them to narrow their range of guesses one iota. The initial radiametric calculations of the climate sensivity of CO2 came up with a value of 1.2 degrees C not including any feedbacks. One researcher has pointed out that these calculations do not take into consideration that a doubling of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere enough to decrease the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. So a better number for the climate sensivity of CO2 not including feedbacks would be less than.06 degrees C. The big issue has been H2O feedback and its related uncertainity is largely responsible for the wide range of guesses.
The idea here is that an increase in CO2 causes warming which causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere. H2O is the primary greenhouse gas so more H2O causes even more warming which causes even more H2O to enter the atmoshere and so forth. A typical assumption is that the positive feedback of H2O causes an amplification of the warming effects of CO2 by roughly a factor of 3.
It is the uncertainity of this feedback factor that causes the wide range of climate sensivity questimates. What this calculation ignores is that while H2O is the primary greenhouse gas in the Earth’s atmosphere, H2O is also a major coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat related energy from the Earth’s surface which is mostly some form of H2O to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. The overwheimling cooling effect of H2O is evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So instead of an amplification factor of 3 a more realistic amplification factor would be 1/3 yielding a climate sensivity of CO2 of less than.02 degrees C which is quite trivial. If the IPCC were not so policital they would be adding calculations like mine to their range of guestimates. Another conconcern is that the radiant greenhouse effect that the AGW conjecture depends upon has not been observed, in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or anywhere else in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction.
Taking this into acocunt’, the climate sensivity of CO2 is zero. So a better and more realistic range of estimates for the climate sensivity of CO2 would be between 0.0 and.02 degrees C. I’m an engineer whose computer at graduation was a slide rule. You had to estimate the answer to place the decimal correctly.
You had the terror in the background of the possibility of making an error. People died because of errors!
The computer was a wonderful invention, but it did let grossly incompetent people in the door and this at a time when “industrial democracy” resulted in universities throwing their doors open so wide that they had to invent ‘faculties lite’ to welcome illiterates and numerically challenged students and professors in. It was simply a matter of money, which put scholarship in the back seat. Simple Excel made calculations of the whole range of statistical techniques easy to do (It’s noteworthy that Phil Jones admitted he didn’t understand how to do Excel) so you could try out dozens of techniques with stuff that that didn’t even represent data and even invent tailormade stat treatments until you got what you wanted. This is how Mann made the hockey stick using an invention that made all noise into hockey sticks. He even employed a contaminated proxy upside down and even repeated this in subsequent renditions.
Even better than climategate would be to see all the trials they did and rejected! Hey, the worst of them won’t let you see the code. I suspect it would be a Rube Goldberg concoction. Briggs’s admonition is simple to understand. If you manipulate data to make a smooth graph, any statistical technique you use afterwards recognizes your improved “fit” as superior data with acceptably narrow error bars! Bad stats isn’t the worst of it. They are going to get the right answer however its arrived at because that’s what they are paid for.
I am constantly surprised at how climate science authors forget both the scientific method and ethics. The abstract talks about policy with reference to the Paris Agreement yet the source temperature data set has uncertainty level set by hypothetical means that bear little relevance to actual measurement standards for verification. Pure theory being touted as important. I am also surprised at myself because I keep repeating this point on this site like Mugatu and the Crazy Pills!!
But anyway, if a purely scientific discussion is being made then at least state the limits of results based on input assumptions. But then it would look like what it is: a what-if exercise. Of course many a real scientist will point out that climate scientists needed to focus on trends because the data points arising annually are inherently so variable that it is almost impossible to draw meaningful conclusions in the short term.
The good thing about loan-sharks is that they are actually often legally obliged to quote an APR on the products they offer the public. Being forced to do this makes it harder for them to deceive their customers/victims. But climate scientists have no such restrictions, so they effectively jump between the time-domain and the frequency-domain as and when they think their audience is not watching the pea very closely. Thus: Long term temperature trends are disappointingly normal-looking? No real change in the science, but let’s focus on making claims about individual years instead.
That way, nobody has to wait to actually see what happens to the trends when they are not producing the desired effects soon enough. So previously we had hot hot hot “global warming weather”, but then it became longer term “climate change” because nobody really felt much hotter. And then it becomes “weird” weather events again because climate takes a long time.And so the wheels on the bus go round and round. A trillion dollars. A hundred thousand of mankind’s brightest minds Ah! Surely you do but Jest, Sir!
A few hundreds of thousands of mankind’s most complex numerical model’s runs. A massed array of the supporting quagmire of the Elites of politics, of the media, of the Inner City goat cheese circle Expert Greens, of Ivory towered academics who know nought of the real world outside, and a vast array of the good, the great and the most outspoken of the ignorants and incompetents of this Earth. Just One assumption they in their wisdom, all have! That a minor and not very concentrated atmospheric gas is in complete control of Earth’s critical temperatures.
Nations rise, Nations fall, They bury the great and not so great, They bury the believers and the unbelievers and the d—-rs El Ninos come and go. La Ninas come and go, neither rarely predicted with any accuracy and sometimes not at all. The great sea ice and land ice sheets of the Arctic and Antarctic come and go while the Great Minds of mankind argue if they will come again or go again next year or five years or ten years. Nature laughs!
The simple minds of the media and the politicians and the greens who can’t propnounce or spell “CO2” talk in horrified whispers of the deadly “Carbon” which will destroy the planet. When such a catastrophe is due is after 30 years of assidious research is still the subject of debate, of argument and of growing contempt towards those who know, they know, but know not why they know. “They seem to overlook one very important thing. In their method, they look at “variations in yearly global temperatures”. They are assuming that the envelope created by the variations will reveal an underlying trend, and from that, a measure of climate sensitivity by comparing it to model output.
Their analogy in the press release, using a weighted spring reveals their thinking as believing Earths climate as being a “constrained system”. Earth’s climate does have some constraints, but it also has chaos, and the chaotic nature of the myriad of forces in Earth’s atmosphere is often pushed beyond what is considered a normal for such constraints. Chaos itself becomes a “forcing”. It is why we get occasional extremes of weather and climate. Edward Lorentz was the first to describe the chaotic nature of the atmosphere with his “butterfly effect” paper in 1972. No they are NOT assuming the envelope reveals an underlying trend. An analogy is just that.
It is not critical to the actual math. Analogies are just meant to simplify. Like the greenhouse and blanket analogy they are NOT substitutes for the math and they are just cartoon versions that hopefully illuminate. But all analogies fail. That’s why you do the math. Climate is not chaotic.
Chaos is not a forcing. Forcings have units. The butterfly effect will work on small scales and on certain metrics. It does not change energy balance. If it could change energy balance then we would live in a MORE SENSITIVE climate. Ok, the GHE is gone for good. I am stil working on finishing my paper, but things are pretty much settled already, and it gets better everytime I check against empirical data.
Yet the story it so absurd because it is soooo simple and obvious. There is a lot of nonsense in this consensus GH-model. The most significant part however are the 12% (342.0.12=41W/m2) going into space. This is the window causing diurnal temperature variations. As these are average values, a clear sky will have a larger window, something like 63-71W/m2.
This loss of heat will drop temperatures during night as we know it. At the same time we are being told, that clouds would have a net cooling effect of about 18W/m2 on average.
On average means including all sky conditions. As clouds can only have that effect if they are present, and assuming they would cover 35% of the surface, the negative 18W/m2 must attributed to these 35%. So if there is complete cloud cover of a 100%, the negative effect should be like 18/0.35 = 51W/m2. During a clear night temperatures will fall by 1.5-2K per hour. If the negative cloud effect was true, temperatures would need to fall by at least 1K per hour, as an average over night and day. But temperatures do not fall at all with clouds. Rather, and that is what I have been researching, temperatures increase with clouds.
Clouds having a positive net effect, is a death sentence to the GH concept. There is a problem using year to year average temperature changes to calculate sensitivity. A nominated year showing a temperature rise, on average, will have some locations where the change is less than the average, even some locations where there has been a fall. While the average process hides this, the mechanism still exists.
The work is deficient if it cannot explain why these negative excursions can and do happen. What happened, at that time in history, other one site with a rise while there was another with a fall? I would like to copy here a shortly what the IPCC has written about the ECS: IPCC summarizes the differences of ECS and TCR (IPCC has changed the term TCS to TCR (Transient Climate Response)) in AR5 like this (p.
1110): “ECS determines the eventual warming in response to stabilization of atmospheric composition on multi-century time scales, while TCR determines the warming expected at a given time following any steady increase in forcing over a 50- to 100-year time scale.” And further on page 1112, IPCC states that “TCR is a more informative indicator of future climate than ECS”. Even the IPCC says that ECS values are very theoretical. IPCC uses TCR/TCS model in calculating the RCP-warming values in the end of this century. January 2018 M T W T F S S Archives Archives Categories Categories Recent Comments on Vincent Causey on Urederra on Mike Flynn on neutronman2014 on Graemethecat on on Graemethecat on Richard111 on on Humor/Satire. Lukewarmers. Political Climate.
Support And Resistance Barry Pdf
Pro AGW Views. Skeptical Views. Tools. Transcendent Rant and way out there theory. Unreliable.
This book presents a comprehensive introduction to weather processes and climatic conditions around the world, their observed variability and changes, and projected future trends. Extensively revised and updated, this ninth edition retains its tried and tested structure while incorporating recent advances in the field. From clear explanations of the basic physical and chemical principles of the atmosphere, to descriptions of regional climates and their changes, the book presents a comprehensive coverage of global meteorology and climatology. In this new edition the latest scientific ideas are again expressed in a clear, non-mathematical matter.
New features include: extended and updated treatment of atmospheric models final chapter on climate variability and change has been completely rewritten to take account of the IPCC 2007 scientific assessment. New four-colour text design featuring over 30 colour plates over 360 diagrams have been redrawn in full colour to improve clarity and aid understanding. Atmosphere, Weather and Climate continues to be an indispensable source for all those studying the earth's atmosphere and world climate, whether from environmental and earth sciences, geography, ecology, agriculture, hydrology, or related disciplinary perspectives. Its pedagogic value is enhanced by several features: learning points at the opening of each chapter and discussion topics at their ending, boxes on topical subjects and on twentieth century advances in the field.
Top-rated posts of all time. Just two weeks ago Dr James Renwick published an article in The Spinoff provocatively titled. 916 views posted on February 1, 2018. Who does it better? Can we really improve on nature?
Is it remotely possible for us. 505 views posted on December 28, 2017. The story of dangerous anthropogenic global warming is painted as a delicate jigsaw. Diverse enigmatic. 401 views posted on January 15, 2018.
Here's a letter I sent yesterday in our name to the Minister for Climate Change. 334 views posted on December 22, 2017.
There are many temperatures in this place. Which one is the 'right' temperature? 260 views posted on February 6, 2011. by Barry Brill, Chairman of the NZ Climate Science Coalition 2017 was a year of. 236 views posted on January 31, 2018. Polar bears are the cute poster-beasties of climate change. I'm sure the cute factor would.
210 views posted on February 8, 2018. Greenpeace helped out James 'Climate Change' Shaw the other day with a press release of.
206 views posted on December 23, 2017. The FAO just revised (increased) its forecast for global cereal production.
The 2017/18 season is. 194 views posted on December 17, 2017. Oh, I'm no denier, I just have a few questions. But first I've been called a. 175 views posted on December 13, 2017.
Or will they?. Guest post.
by Gary Kerkin Not long after the Trump administration appointed. 175 views posted on January 22, 2018. Well-disinformed comments here prompt a repost from a valuable source of good sense: Matt Ridley. 166 views posted on February 3, 2018. The data say one thing CORRECTION 1 Nov 2017 1945 NZDT: The original post used annual.
141 views posted on November 1, 2017. True science — I mean confessions The Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) for each IPCC report.
141 views posted on January 29, 2018. The Prime Minister says combating climate change will be the defining characteristic of her term. 126 views posted on December 3, 2017.