I have also often cited the deserts of the earth. I am least concerned over the arctic and a bit more concerned with the deserts of the earth. Why is that? Deserts should virtually unanimously ought to be setting records for high temperatures. Strangely this is not happening. For example in Death Valley CA, the record set was in 1913. This record is for the entire planet. Strangely the recent temperatures seldom go higher than 114 with spells up to 116. Still not exceeding the record set in 1913. Well ahead of carbon dioxide named as the problem.
Normally I supply peer reviewed comments. I do not notice many people read peer reviewed materials. They do enjoy heated rhetoric. I submit to the cautious listener, since the following has some cursing, this rhetoric. Now. the speaker asked a very good question and she got an excellent reply. Can you tell me the reply she got? She cited the money people. So who watched the video and wants to discuss the points made? GLOBAL WARMING IS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN HISTORY - Dan Pena
Reading the above post again for more clarity I noticed the disconnect to what I have been speaking of. I want to add more here in reference to sea rise and problems associated with this as a reference. Trouble is, the hiatus was denied by the alarmists so we have to see who the true deniers are and why they deny. In my opinion, they deny due to faulty politics. The science told them there was a hiatus yet they acted like they had to scurry about to prove there was no hiatus. Funny how that worked. Clouds are a major factor. There is a variety of clouds. And not all are equal to the others. But more as I said on sea level. https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/02/...-projections-for-the-21st-century/#more-23990
The reason you KNOW about the hiatus is that science TOLD you about that. So, your charges of denial make no sense at all. Besides, the issue with the hiatus has to do with learning where the heat went. The sun did not change that much. Human behavior didn't change that much. And, now we have charts of temperature moving back to the longer term average growth rate. What's left is for science to figure out what caused the abnormality. And, it makes perfect sense that anyone interested in knowing about climatology would want to investigate this. So, your "scurry about" is nothing more than you trying to denigrate science. SCIENCE told you that all atmospheric moisture does not affect climate in the same way. SCIENCE even provided you with analysis showing the magnitude and direction of the effects of the different types of atmospheric moisture - including error bars to show the degree of uncertainty. I don't believe your post added anything to the discussion. You're just raising questions about how you choose to pick the science you want to accept.
Once more reading your post, it looks precisely like an attack looks. And one more time totally misconstruing my own views of this important topic. And you act like Science is kin to my mom or dad when they lived. As though it was one science and no confusion of any sort.
No, I point out that science gave you the information you have. Science gave it to you broken out by the various components as measured in watts per surface area. You suggest science isn't in total agreement. You got THAT from science, too!! Science gives you error bars for each climate forcing factor, so one can get an idea of how far off science believes that results could be. You quote ONE scientist a lot. But, you ignore the majority of scientists - those who did the work to produce the information that you (and Curry) use, along with the many others who form a consensus view of what that information indicates. And, Curry holds some (perhaps not all) views that are definitely in the minority among climatologists. Overall, it's not at all clear to me what "your own views" are.
Lad, and I am trying to show you far more respect than you show to me, guess what I spent high school and some years in college studying? I spent a lot of time studying science. I ignore no scientists. i spend more time ignoring politicians. When would you suspect I first dived deep into climate? You don't know, do you? I got involved in 1980 and had to pass a Federal Test on this topic. I use Curry since she has a good number of scientists on her site who explain their area of science vs climate and weather. I notice you misrepresent Dr. Curry so you misrepresenting me is not a huge shock.
Summed up in a short post. I view climate as determined by a number of factors. Proximity to water such as oceans is one major factor. A huge body of water such as the Great Lakes makes major changes to climate as well. Deserts for lack of water so they are hotter areas. I do not believe I am in charge of climate. I believe any attempts to put me in charge of climate is a huge failure and a waste of time. I am but one blamed for climate. It is very political to blame me and say i am in charge of Climate. I speak for millions of humans.
You forget that I'm an IFR pilot and took that same test. It has absolutely nothing to do with climate change. Nothing.
It gave us a much more informed view of weather and climate than most others have. You keep speaking down to me. As if what you say becomes law or dogma. Why do you hold yourself to the status you know more than Dr. Curry knows?
I'm not speaking down to you - I'm disagreeing. And, yes, you probably do know more about weather than most do, but climate change is something totally separate from learning how weather behaves in various climates. There really isn't any crossover. I do respect Dr. Curry, though her views are certainly a minority opinion in some significant aspects of climate change. You are pumping a minority view. You're spending a lot of time doing a copy/paste job with Dr. Curry. That's not really what this board is for.
I disagree with you and do not waste time talking down to you. If you do not see how you talk down to me, evaluate how you would think were the roles reversed and it was me talking down to you. You decided and i have no clue how or why, you are better at this science than Curry or her panel of experts she presents to all of us. I present Curry to get the diversity. What do you think the mystery of climate amounts to given you want to separate weather from climate. i do not know how to separate them so let's you examine your knowledge to explain to me and others how to separate climate and weather? Be a good exercise since you think i lack in that department. Calling her a minority I believe mislabels her. She does not have the loudest voice, but I believe based on all that I have studied she is far more mainstream than you seem to think. She is an expert used by commerce who trust her judgement. Now on your lofty perch, you also tell me what the forum is used for. I was shocked.
I did not do that at all. Not even slightly. I'm not the one separating climate change from weather. All of science does that. The difference is that climate change has to do with change over time - comparing running averages of 5 or 10 years to understand longer term trends. By studying the causes behind these longer term trends climatologists can come to a better understanding of changes into the future. Her views have always tended to dispute the amount of difference that human activity is making - differing significantly from the mainstream in that way - a way that is of significant importance wrt policy decisions we would make. Again, that's not me. I'm just pointing out how she differs from the mainstream.
Today's installment of the Curry Corner. She proceeds to earn an income doing forecasts. If you want to try your hand, check this out. https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/05/enso-forecast-for-2018/#more-24012
https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/18/four-questions-on-climate-change/#more-24057 I have mentioned the difficulty of climate discussions unless clouds are factored in. Not as a theory, but actual measurements and correlated to climate. We have more details that perhaps will say it better than i have thus far. Now, a bit of it but not that much. Study it and discover is all I ask of posters. ..................read all of article to truly understand the complex nature of this topic
Ok, so I actually agree with a lot of stuff JC says in her blog referenced above ^^^^. However, I think she leaves a lot of context out. For example, this passage. That's completely expected. Due to chaos theory even the most minute differences in the initial states can lead to vastly different outcomes. However, what she does not mention is that in each of these 30 cases they ALL resulted in significant warming. The "considerably different states" is in reference to the regional distribution of the warming which is what AGW has been saying all along. The warming will not be homogeneous and the precise distribution of it will be very difficult if not impossible to get 100% right. But when you take a step back and view the result over larger scales the warming is plainly obvious. In fact, no matter how we perturb our models to exploit the small scale randomness they overwhelmingly show warming on the large scale. I've mentioned this before and I'll do so here again. The atmosphere has chaotic behavior on small scales (both spatial and temporal). This makes weather forecasts which rely heavily on forecasts of exact parameters at exact locations at exact times very difficult. It means that weather forecast will likely never exhibit useful skill much beyond 14 days. And the smaller the scale the lower the useful skill lead times will be. However, on the larger macroscopic scale (again both spatial and temporal) the atmosphere has behaviors characteristic of what are called strange attractors. This makes climate forecasts which only rely on forecasts of average parameters over large regions spanning long periods much simpler. So even though the weather behaves chaotically on small scales the aggregate effect of this is for the atmosphere to hug attractors on large scales. In other words, the atmosphere is random on the small scale, but highly predictable on the large scale. Anthroprogenic effects are pushing the global mean temperature attractor upward. The weather will generally follow that upward global mean temperature trend, but the precise nature of it's random walk relative to that trend will be very difficult to ascertain. Just because we cannot know the exact nature of the microscopic details of how the warming plays out does not mean cannot know the macroscopic details. I liken this to quantum mechanics. Everybody agrees that it's impossible to know the precise speed and location of an individual electron, neutron, or proton. But, when you aggregate many of them together such is the case with everyday objects like baseballs and cars you can be absolutely certain of their speed and location even though internally there is a maelstrom of subatomic particles zipping this way and that. Those particles are in a perpetual state of random motion. But, the net sum of that random motion always follows the macroscopic object. I personally find this analogy of particle/object to weather/climate useful and I hope others do as well.
It is assumed that the blogs are by Judy when many of them are by others and Judy brings them to our attention. If man controls climate, why isn't man globally controlling climate?
Let's evaluate this. To kind of wrap up #1. All of the above is background to one of the great mysteries of the climate change issue. Virtually all the scientists directly involved in climate prediction are aware of the enormous problems and uncertainties still associated with their product. It is therefore difficult to see how the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the IPCC) can maintain there is a 95 per cent probability that human emissions of carbon dioxide have caused most of the global warming that has occurred over the last several decades(4). Bear in mind that the representation of clouds in climate models (and of the water vapour which is intimately involved with cloud formation) is such as to amplify the forecast global warming from increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide — on average over most of the models — by a factor of about three(5). In other words, two-thirds of the forecast rise in global average temperature derives from this particular model characteristic. Despite what the models are telling us — and perhaps because it is models that are telling us — very few scientists close to the problem, when asked the specific question, would say that they are 95 per cent sure that the effect of clouds is to amplify rather than to reduce the warming effect of increasing carbon dioxide. If they are not sure that clouds amplify global warming, they cannot be sure that most of that warming is a result of increasing carbon dioxide. (Climate scientists talk in terms of ‘feedback’. Positive feedbacks amplify the warming effect, and negative feedbacks reduce it. The various climate models have cloud feedbacks ranging from slightly negative to significantly positive(5), and there is no guarantee that cloud feedback in the real world lies within even that quite large range.) Bear in mind too that very few scientists close to the problem, when asked the specific question, would say there is only a very small possibility (for example, less than 5 per cent) that internal ocean behaviour could be a major cause of the warming over the past half-century(27). They would be particularly careful not to make such a statement now that there has been only a small global warming over the most recent twenty-or-so years. In the scurry to find reasons for this ‘pause’ (it was first acknowledged as a problem in 2009 or thereabouts(33)), and to find reasons for an obvious failure of the models to predict it, about three or four years ago we began to hear from scientists that (among other theories(6, 7)) perhaps the heat of global warming was being hidden in the deep ocean. In other words we were being told that some natural internal oceanic fluctuation may have reduced the upward trend in global temperature. It is therefore a little strange that we were not being told by the IPCC, or at any rate we were not being told very loudly, that some natural internal fluctuation of the ocean (rather than warming by increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide) may have given rise to much of the earlier upward trend of temperature. In 2015, a group of scientists within NOAA re-examined the world’s long-term measured surface temperature data and found reasons to adjust (to correct?) the data in such a way as to remove the so-called ‘pause’ from the observational record(. There has been much argument about the validity of the adjustments(9). It has given a considerable impetus to the suggestion that cherry picking of data may be a problem in climate change science. In light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem — or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem. If true, it is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it would risk destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty that is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour. It would seem sensible for the climate-science community to back away from any tacit support for the proposition that ‘the science is settled’.
More data provided from the Curry Corner links. The influence of internal variability on Earth's energy balance framework and implications for estimating climate sensitivity This is part of the value of Curry. She collects data and presents it and the links. Andrew E. Dessler1, Thorsten Mauritsen2, and Bjorn Stevens21Dept. of Atmospheric Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843, USA 2Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Bundesstraße 53, 20146 Hamburg, Germany Received: 29 Dec 2017 – Discussion started: 15 Jan 2018 Revised: 20 Mar 2018 – Accepted: 23 Mar 2018 – Published: 17 Apr 2018 Abstract. Our climate is constrained by the balance between solar energy absorbed by the Earth and terrestrial energy radiated to space. This energy balance has been widely used to infer equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) from observations of 20th-century warming. Such estimates yield lower values than other methods, and these have been influential in pushing down the consensus ECS range in recent assessments. Here we test the method using a 100-member ensemble of the Max Planck Institute Earth System Model (MPI-ESM1.1) simulations of the period 1850–2005 with known forcing. We calculate ECS in each ensemble member using energy balance, yielding values ranging from 2.1 to 3.9 K. The spread in the ensemble is related to the central assumption in the energy budget framework: that global average surface temperature anomalies are indicative of anomalies in outgoing energy (either of terrestrial origin or reflected solar energy). We find that this assumption is not well supported over the historical temperature record in the model ensemble or more recent satellite observations. We find that framing energy balance in terms of 500 hPa tropical temperature better describes the planet's energy balance. Citation: Dessler, A. E., Mauritsen, T., and Stevens, B.: The influence of internal variability on Earth's energy balance framework and implications for estimating climate sensitivity, Atmos. Chem. Phys., 18, 5147-5155, https://doi.org/10.5194/acp-18-5147-2018, 2018. https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5147/2018/
More Data to improve the Curry corner. This data is about the carbon dioxide detectors in space and does not show up in the Curry columns. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/3/2/270/htm Start here in the early part but please study the full scientific report. I call on you not to blindly stumble bum your way through this. Science is not easy. So do not at first expect this to be easy for you. Look at errors. Look where they can't collect data. Notice that your bias that they get data everywhere is going to be shot to hades. You will notice that clouds vastly impact accuracy. And do some thinking. Think what happens where data can't be collected. Surprises here for you that this comes to you from science but probably shatters the myths you currently hold.
Here is a hot-of-the-presses peer reviewed publication from Judith Curry herself. https://niclewis.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/lewis_and_curry_jcli-d-17-0667_accepted.pdf If you've ever wondered what her official position is on AGW this is about as definitive as you can get. She makes an argument that the warming will be 1.8C by 2100 as opposed to the IPCC estimate of 3.2C.
From Curry: "The implications of our results are that high best estimates of ECShist, ECS and TCR derived from a majority of CMIP5 climate models are inconsistent with observed warming during the historical period (confidence level 95%). Moreover, our median ECS and TCR estimates using infilled temperature data imply multicentennial or multidecadal future warming under increasing forcing of only 55−70% of the mean warming simulated by CMIP5 models. Acknowledgements. We thank Cheng Lijing for providing OHC data, updated to 2016, and three reviewers for helpful comments."
Ya know...she and I aren't too far apart on this. I've always said that the IPCC estimates may be a little high and I've said I think it will be more like the low to mid 2's. So she's still lower than what I think it will be, but not by much.
Ok ,,, This video will be seized on by the believers and say, see there .... Science proves what CO2 does. I go hold on, it proves how much CO2 is created annually by men. It does not even try to correlate it to rise of temperature. So why not. Put your scientific brain to work and take a guess? Why did the brain stop and not correlate it to temperature? He seems content to stick to the story man does it. Here is the problem in a nutshell. A. The way it is measured, there is no such thing as a global average. There are places measured by Satellites that can not reach much of earth. Why not? Due to heavy cloud cover, the Satellites that measure do not get it. So what then? Do you take the cool parts of earth beneath the clouds to measure high temperatures? They are cool. So how can cool be used to prove hot? Same at the poles. How can mind numbing cool be used to prove hot? Here is the video and so am I saying the measurements are full of hot air? Frankly I did not do the math nor worked out the same calculations. I will not say they are wrong. I expect they are actually accurate. I give him credit for spending a lot of time and over his time he worked it all out. But my questions remain. How can cool be used to prove hot? I told you some of the cool places. But the ocean is cool too. Seldom is it hot like the Gulf stream nor around the Hawaiian Islands. Hawaii is very much closer to The equator than say to San Francisco where the ocean is very cold. Further north, the ocean is seriously cold. So work it out.
