Uknowispeaksense picked it up, but within the comments section of this blog John Harvey Samuel re-posted some brilliant passages:
If any scientist had a coherent and sensible scientific revelation that we needn’t be worried about fossil-fuel greenhouse-gas emissions causing a dangerous global warming problem, that scientist would write what would very quickly become the most celebrated research paper ever published. The publication would be in one of the world’s most prestigious science journals, and that journal would be proud to have the honor and privilege. Literally hundreds of other scientists would quickly validate the research, and the author of the paper would become the most famously celebrated scientist in history.
Every last one of us — scientist or layperson, conservative or liberal, religious or not — shares the same confirmation bias: we would strongly prefer that the problem of global warming were not real and not serious. Those of us who do understand the science would be the first in line to shake the hero’s hand and thank them for delivering the best news civilization has ever gotten.
But that’s not reality. We are experiencing, all at once, not just global warming but the entire suite of climate change phenomena that go along with it. Unprecedented droughts. Unprecedented heatwaves. Unprecedented storms. Unprecedented floods. Unprecedented precipitation events. Such a high ratio of new record high temperatures to new record low temperatures that it would be statistically impossible without a definite global warming trend (and that ratio is growing). Earth’s perennial ice is melting — including the entire north polar ice cap.
Who predicted 25 years ago that these things were going to happen?
These phenomena were, in fact, predicted by the very same scientists who say that carbon emissions from burning enormous amounts of fossil fuels are building up in Earth’s atmosphere and causing global warming — as originally predicted in 1896.
Forget the models, forget all the other noise in the debate. The observations by Svante Arrhenius were made 120 years ago.
Here is the 1896 paper – it is worth noting he did not foresee the rapid increase in CO2 we’ve seen. Also, his estimates of climate sensitivity (temperature increases) were too high.
Essentially he was trying to determine the influences on the Earth’s energy budget. Given the limited tools and data at his disposal, his work is still remarkable.
Either that, or the conspiracy started in 1896…
Profound observation John.
/golf clap
Watching the Deniers 
Well credentialed are writing papers objecting to flaws in alarmist theory – but you dismiss them all as “deniers”.
There were conscientious objectors to the Eugenics craze as well, but their concerns were brushed aside, until the horror of film footage from the liberated concentration camps finally brought everyone to their senses.
The fact that a group of scientists are hysterically clinging to their doomsday theory does not falsify the possibility that there are serious flaws in that theory.
Eugenics off topic Eric. Science does not equal Nazism.
If you wish to debate the origins of the final solution I have a literally a wall of books on the topic and spent the better part of two decades trying to understand the issue. I could also point you to the hundreds of scholars on the question.
I’m not going to debate it, and give air to the suggestion.
Last chance – one more eugenics and third strike thanks.
The history of the Eugenics craze proves that large scale pseudoscientific crazes are possible – that institutions and well trained scientists can be misled for decades by pseudoscience.
To ban talking about it, and the implications, in the context of suggesting that a scientist could simply write a paper to overturn climate science, is tantamount to banning a discussion of possible flaws in climate science.
Ban me if you will – and have your echo chamber.
eric you have been told , you post junk over and over, the same junk every time a new post comes up, we are sick of your nazi and eugenics obsession, it has SFA to do with the science .
by the way your China CTL claim was gibberish , the project is one of the ambitious Chinese innovations to clear sulfur smog and capture CO2
answered your last comment on such
John, if you can believe a CTL plant is environmentally friendly, you can believe anything.
Note RE Eugenics, I am not saying that the history of Eugenics proves that alarmist climate science is wrong.
All I am claiming from my Eugenics reference is that it proves that, under some circumstances, it is not possible to simply write a paper and overturn a field of science – that in some circumstances, scientists and scientific institutions become dysfunctional.
Given the evidence of attempts to suppress scientific papers written by “deniers”, given the fact that any scientists are called “deniers”, and their motives denigrated, instead of simply calling them “wrong”, suggests a level of dysfunction in the climate science community.
Then go and read the reply with link
that is two more , go away and think about this eric, ban yourself until you regain your sanity
CTL John – 50% of the carbon is burnt as CO2 to produce hydrocarbon, even with a theoretically perfect reaction.
Of course a much higher percentage is actually burned – you need to heat the ingredients up to tremendous temperature and pressure to force coal and water to combine.
Keep telling yourself its environmentally friendly if it helps.
Eric’s list of well credentialed papers is contained within these square brackets.
[]
What “flaws” and what is this “alarmist” theory?
As usual Eric, you are inhabiting a fantasy world.
Good thing it’s too hot for ticks where Eric lives. http://www.cmajopen.ca/content/1/1/E43.full
Eric
xxxxxxx
You are engaging in the most blatant form of word placement imaginable.
Denial that entire fields of science can sometimes be dysfunctional BBD?
one warning for john byatt strike one
eric you are a retard
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-27/china-beats-u-s-with-power-from-coal-processing-trapping-carbon.html
helping to clean up China’ s pollution
power from coal processing trapping CO2
for eric
john byatt says:
June 11, 2013 at 6:42 am
“The Chinese are deploying some of these decarbonizing technologies more aggressively than anyone,” says Chris Hartshorn, vice president of Boston-based Lux Research Inc., which on March 1 released a 40-page report on China’s technology priorities. “They have the money, and their system for investing simultaneously in research, technology and market adoption should be the envy of the world.”
China is underpinning its cleanup by boosting the efficiency of coal-burning plants. Turbines from Shanghai Electric Group Co. (601727), the world’s largest provider of coal-fired electricity-generating equipment, require less carbon-spewing rock to begin with.
China Huaneng Group Corp. (902) is designing its GreenGen plant in Tianjin to wring more power from coal while capturing more than 98 percent of its sulfur emissions, which can then be sold to industrial users. By 2016, Huaneng plans to trap 80 percent of GreenGen’s carbon emissions and use them to boost production in oil wells in nearby Bohai Bay
Jo Nova did a link on high efficiency Chinese coal power.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/03/upgrade-coal-power-and-cut-15-of-emissions-will-the-greens-consider-coal/
Nothing to do with CTL.
Seriously? Jo Nova? Wow. Do you read anything credible? No Nature? No Science? No AGU? No GRL? Just wingnuts you cite as facts? Wow.
More on China and Carbon. Yes, I do think Nature has a better reputation than Nova, thanks for asking. http://www.nature.com/news/china-gets-tough-on-carbon-1.13175?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20130613
As eric did not read my link he assumed that it only referred to the power plant pollution rather than the full process re CTL
what has nova got to do with this, is that where you got this nonsense.?
it is the process that you have been going on about
the chinese did it when the US could not
you did not even read it it is a long article
They’re turning coal into 1 million tons of diesel, naphtha and liquefied petroleum gas for Shenhua’s truck fleet, PetroChina and other customers each year. Before Shenhua opened the plant in 2008, nobody had ever built a complex this big to make fuel from coal using direct liquefaction, chief engineer Shu Geping proudly says.
Workers heat and pressurize coal and capture the escaping chemicals in liquid form in a sealed vat. Then they blast them with hydrogen to make the fuel they seek, leaving liquid CO2 as a byproduct.
Liquified CO2, how brilliant is that for transport to storage,
they will also use it for other products
and more
Efforts to tackle carbon pollution extend from labs such as Yashentech’s, which is seeking such clean-energy breakthroughs as new uses for coal and antidotes to its pollution, to a windswept hill in the northern desert, where China’s biggest experiment in burying CO2 is under way.
Here, in Inner Mongolia, the world’s largest coal company, Shenhua Group Corp (SHGCLZ)., is turning coal into diesel via a form of gasification called direct liquefaction. Gasification heats coal with oxygen to release gas that makes not only electricity but also fuel, methanol and the building blocks of plastics.
Shenhua is trying to find the best and cheapest way to dispose of the resulting waste carbon. It captures and buries some of it and is studying whether to pump it into oil wells to boost output.
Meanwhile, in a fishy-smelling lab in Langfang, a city just south of Beijing, ENN Energy Holdings Ltd. (2688) feeds carbon dioxide to microalgae. The company is eventually planning to get the organisms’ CO2 breakfast from its Inner Mongolia coal-to- methanol plant. In return, the algae yield oil for biofuels and omega-3 fatty acids that people can take to guard against heart disease
Stop lying. This is what you really think:
http://dumbscientist.com/archives/abrupt-climate-change#comment-18158
I don’t think climate alarmism is harmless – look at the damage done by biofuel subsidies, something you now say you don’t support – but it continues, nevertheless.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/16/biofuels.alternativeenergy
we do support biofuels eric, waste or even cane, not food, not corn,
“climate alarmism”
Dishonest framing. There is no “alarmism”, with its implicit over-statement of the scale and implications of the problem.
Your absolute bad faith is a problem here, Eric.
COMMENTS OPEN AGAIN
Stay on topic please.
that might be a FB worth following
brilliant writing
Today, John Havery Samuel summed up what’s going on…beautifully by quoting from a FB page called the Global Ecologist. The fact that deniers don’t get this, is beyond me. He quotes…
Please note, Eric has received a temp ban. This has been communicated to him and for the reasons I outlined above. Please refrain from further comment on the topic eugenics and/or references to the Final Solution.
Thanks.
Global warming ended more than a decade ago http://endofgw.blogspot.com/
Natural climate change has been hiding in plain sight http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html
Climate has always changed.
have a go at the Arctic ice prediction over the next few years
bet you have to pull your blog post or look like a fool within the next two years
I mean a bigger fool
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/07/lu-from-interesting-but-incorrect-to-just-wrong/
here is a projection for the Arctic in a week’s time
Open water at the NP itself? WTF
Oh, *that* Dan Pangburn. http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/dan-pangburn/
As you’ve picked up, the words weren’t mine. I cut and pasted them from the Global Ecologist on Facebook. It is an argument I’ve used in the past. Scientists, and engineers, are professional sceptics. Nothing drives them more than the killer, turn the world upside down, theory or solution. To claim otherwise, as deniars do, is simply nuts. And I mock deniars for it.
I post more here than in others because it is, frankly, good fun winding these oh so unsceptical so-called sceptics up. You don’t have to watch them. They come and take the bait, the hook, the line, the sinker, and a bit of rubber wader. The repetitive nonsense is a bit boring, I oft feel like just posting the number of the SkS argument that debunks them. Honestly, only the truly stupid claim global warming has stopped. But, sometimes, they expose the glint of pure lunacy that makes it sport. Their flecks of spittle can be felt as they strike one’s cheek – and I break out into song when that happens.
I’ve had a couple of people ask me why I use “deniar”. Well, very obviously, they’re hardly sceptics, are they? And contrarians just doesn’t denote how crank these people are. Now deniers is in the popular argot, admittedly. But, as was pointed out to me, denier is a useful unit of measure. So denier+liar, et voila, deniar.
(Oh, and my middle name does have an unusual spelling. I don’t, as a rule, use it. But I’ve since bumped into a couple of other John Samuel(s), so I use Havery to disambiguate. I can be found on all the usual social media.)
It’s mine now
Another serious record broken. Please, when will “NATURAL VARIABILITY” come to the rescue?!
Water levels in the Great Lakes have been below their long-term averages during the past 14 years, and this winter the water in Lakes Michigan and Huron, the hardest-hit lakes, dropped to record lows, according to the Army Corps of Engineers. Keith Kompoltowicz, the chief of watershed hydrology with the corps’s Detroit district, said that in January “the monthly mean was the lowest ever recorded, going back to 1918.”
Heh Dr No,
You know I always like to be helpful. I just thought I’d post these few paragraphs from the same article which, I’m sure, you simply overlooked:
“A measure of the drop in water levels can also be attributed to the engineering that makes Great Lakes shipping possible. The 1962 dredging of the St. Clair River may have lowered the water in Lake Huron and Lake Michigan by five inches, said John Nevin, a spokesman for the International Joint Commission, founded by the United States and Canada nearly 100 years ago to study issues pertaining to boundary waters.
Other dredging projects may have emptied 16 inches in all from the lakes, Mr. Nevin said. Ways to slow water flowing down the St. Clair, including water gates or turbines that could generate power, have been discussed for years, but any changes would have to be weighed against factors like environmental impact on aquatic life.”
Dredging up data for the new normal?
could see that coming,John did offer the entire article,
and you did not like
The most recent causes of low water were the mild winters in 2011 and 2012, which left too little snow to feed the lakes, traditionally “the largest source of water to the Great Lakes,” Mr. Kompoltowicz of the corps said. Last spring, the water level rose just 4 inches instead of the usual 12 in Michigan and Huron, he said, and that was followed by an unusually dry summer and above-average evaporation in the fall — 12 inches more than average. The water level currently stands at 577.20 feet, 22 inches below the long-term average.
Mark has been caught dredging up data – quote mining for fun and profit is the metier of the anti-science brigade.
Struth JHS you drongo. I was adding context to the truncated quote from Dr No.
Stuth indeed, Mark, you just don’t like being caught.
Mark, I am so relieved.
As I have said many times before, we can now move on and not worry one teensy weensy bit that anything is amiss.
Thanks for being so helpful (and reassuring).
NOAA data on the Great Lakes is here. http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/levels.html. Do read the fine print.
Aside from water levels, they are also getting warmer.
Great Lakes level reducing, sea level rising. http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/now/wlevels/docs/great_lakes_vs_battery_gauge.pdf
And we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Glug, glug. Florida. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/06/130612-sea-level-rise-new-york-bloomberg-sandy-climate-change-science/
Groundwater looks to be emerging as a big problem. The USA has some large-ish cities inland. Most of ours are near the coast so we can build desal plants to cover during long droughts. I don’t know what they are planning in the USA or in other countries.
While poor Europe has gone from water levels so low that it stopped the river traffic to the such awful floods in a very short space of time.
Uh Oh with Eric banned the comments section will be less interesting for everyone. Who are you going to watch?
I am a denier you can watch me. Interestingly I started off as a convinced proponent of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming but I have become increasingly skeptical of this position over the last year. I realise the exwarmist exdenier card is played a bit but for me it is true. Here is outline of the evolution of my position.
1: I was surprised to find that 2/3 of proposed warming arising from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration is due an assumption of significant overall positive feedback. This feedback would apply to warming from any cause. I am not a believer in intelligent design so it is possible that this unstable system is our earth but it strikes me as unlikely that life would have evolved in such a world. There doesn’t seem to be clear scientific evidence regarding feedbacks. The only actual experiment that is relevant is the one we are conducting and presently the global temperature record does not seem to reflect massive positive feedback.
2: I realised I was not comfortable discussing this position with my friends. This was a very interesting revelation. I noticed that my friends were generally not well informed but very vehement in their pro CAGW positions. It had more of a religious feel about it than a science feel. It is the nature of science to question things. It should be ok.
3: I noticed the transition of the meme from global warming to climate change. Weather was becoming climate perhaps because the globe wasn’t warming. At the same time I visited the HADCRUT4, NCDC and GISS sites. I noticed from graphs on the home pages that the “pause” was looking pretty solid. There was also a shift from criticising mention of the pause as cherry picking to “oh but its in the oceans.” It seems strange that warming due to processes in the troposphere is not evident there, is not evident in surface temperature but is evident in the place that is the hardest to measure with the poorest data record.
Rational people can be skeptics. I am convinced smoking causes lung cancer and I am convinced vaccination is very important. I am not of fixed belief, if global temperatures follow the models again I will say sorry you were right and I will be convinced increased CO2 concentration causes catastrophic global warming. Presently it looks like we have time to wait and see.
Global temperatures are following the models.
please correct me if i am wrong but are they? eyeballing for example:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html
the steep part of the temperature rise has a slope of 0.2 degrees per decade (0.5 degrees warming in 25 yrs from 1975 to 2000).
To get us to the middle of the road estimate of 3 degrees warming from preindustrial temps by 2100 a further 2.5 degrees warming from here on in over the next 9 decades is required. That is 0.27 degrees per decade- steeper than the steepest part of the curve from MET office Global Average Temperature. Maybe I am looking at the wrong charts. Maybe I should stop trying to calculate things from myself but it looks like the current slope is clearly quite a bit less than this. Some would even call the current slope flat. The modeled slope isn’t flat. Is that the same?
I know that there are a lot of so claimed models out there, even one from a leaked AR5
here is the ridgy didge IPCC model as updated 2012 by the people who run the models
Ggavin Schmidt at NASA
It is 2DegC that must be avoided, we are at about 0.8DegC
so we only have 1.2DegC to go over the next 87years
we also have about 0.5DegC in the pipeline due to the inertia of the Ocean, about 30years to reach equilibrium
so we are effectively at 1.3DegC with 87 years to go
even if we only have a 0.1DegC decade trend we still get to 2DegC by 2100 and still have more in the pipeline.
surface temp trend for the last decade was 0.15DegC hadcrut sam ,
that is only two hundredths below the previous three ten year trends.
to be strictly true then, we do not have a pause, we have continued warming but at a slightly lower trend
maybe you would like to check out what the best estimate is for the energy imbalance at TOA, is, less energy is escaping to space than what is being received then the planet has no option but to warm
I am sure that you realise that there are natural variations on a yearly basis
what if we remove the noise from solar, ENSO and volcanoes?
We are not here to change people’s mind sam but just to address false claims from deniers, sceptics would be welcome
bottom line the climate sensitivity remains at 2 to 4.5DegC best estimate 3DegC for 2 X CO2
nothing to date has changed that.
“bottom line the climate sensitivity remains at 2 to 4.5DegC best estimate 3DegC for 2 X CO2
nothing to date has changed that.”
Otto et al?
No Otto et al has changed nothing and if you read what they say you will find out that even if he was 100% correct then we would only have an extra 15 years to get to 2DegC ,
we still go beyond 2DegC at 2100 using his CS and he has confirmed that
above 2Degc is the dangerous level,
Mark
You have already comprehensively demonstrated that:
– You don’t understand the the difference between TCR and ECS
– You have not read Otto et al.
Here’s some well-meaning advice: stop citing papers you haven’t read on topics you obviously don’t understand.
As for Otto, it, like all such observationally-derived estimates, is not robust. I have repeatedly explained *why* on earlier threads here. Best you look back and improve your horribly threadbare topic knowledge instead of incessantly trolling comments here with half-baked denialist tripe.
Lest we forget just how catastrophic a boo-boo Mark committed:
Look boys, just because you don’t want it to be true doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Just denying the results from Otto isn’t exactly the sort of image you like to project. If Otto had found a higher sensitivity and I rejected it, accusations of denier, anti-science, flat-earth and all the other childish epithets you use, would be flying around with gay abandon.
Otto et al (and you should check the how well credential the als are) found a TCR of 1.3c and an ECR of 2c for a doubling of CO2. At current rates that doubling isn’t going to happen until around 2100, and, I’d argue, a long time after that.
Just because that doesn’t suit your beliefs doesn’t make it wrong.
You may as well get used to this type of thing. As the climate continues to refuse to follow the models, more and more of this type of back-tracking is going to occur. If I were you I’d try to get on the front foot and accept it…maybe even try to get ahead of it so you won’t look quite so foolish as the GGWS unravels.
What are the implications of a TCR of 1.3°C rather than 1.8°C? The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC’s models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead (assuming future warming rates simply scale with TCR). To put this result in perspective, internal climate variability and uncertainties in future forcing could well have more impact on the global temperature trajectory on this timescale.
Met UK
A TCR of 1.3c is achieved as a result of a doubling of CO2 from pre-industrial levels .
You seem to assume that’ll occur in 2050. Why? And why, after taking 200 years to warm 1.3c (on these assumptions) would it then only take another 15yrs to warm another .5c?
The most likely changes predicted by the IPCC’s models between now and 2050 might take until 2065 instead
No No. We get 1.3c after a doubling of co2. Why will that doubling occur by 2050? Or do you just reject Otto outright ?
Can we get a denier with a bit of understanding, this one is hopeless
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/19/climate-change-meltdown-unlikely-research
Mark, you are clueless. You STILL have no idea what TCR is, as this incorrect statement demonstrates.
Strongly agree with John Byatt. Please, go away and read up on the basics instead of spraying comments here with bilge.
Come back if/when you have a clue.
Incredibly stupid.
The rate of increase in forcing from CO2 ~1850 – present is non-linear. Obviously. As any fule kno.
This is just painful, Mark. Please, go away and do some reading.
We don’t “deny” Otto’s results. We just think they are an under-estimate. And various people here have explained why, repeatedly.
You, on the other hand, seize on a single – problematic – result purely as a point of contention. It is the very opposite of sceptical thinking. You are not remotely a sceptic. Which, borrowing from your words on the Badger thread, leaves only ‘denier’ and ‘troll’.
There’s an explanation as to how Otto et al. fits into the scheme of things down-thread. Please take a moment to read it.
You might also want to consider Professor Steven Sherwood’s comment on Otto et al. Prof. Sherwood is co-Director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales:
I’d be careful with these low, observationally-derived estimates of TCR/ECS if I were you.
Funny how Otto acknowledges climate change as human driven, and yet sceptics love it because… why?
Let’s start again…when do you think the doubling of CO2 will occur? When will we get to 560ppm?
about 2060 under the BAU scenario
another look squirrel to bury his mistakes?
Over the past two decades the CO2 atmospheric content has been rising at around 2ppm/yr. As such it’d take another 80 yrs to get from our current 400ppm to 560ppm or well into the 2090’s. It is only at that point that we get to the carbon sensitivity levels covered by Otto.
Mark does not understand the term BAU , no surprise there
Hi John, thanks for the reply. I do recall hearing about the 0.15 degree trend for the last decade. Is it possible to explain how a trend of 0.15 over the last decade is consistent with http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html in my reply above?
I tried to click on that video link- it says the video is private I don’t know why. I have seen it before though and had a bit the feeling I was being bamboozled by pretty pictures. I suppose to sum up I wonder if the noise is stronger than we thought and the signal weaker than we thought and the uncertainty far greater than has generally been expressed. I fear there will be quite a backlash against environmentalism in general if this turns out to be the case.
sure, no the noise at present is about .2 to .3 per year 1998 was about .2 above the trend recent years mainly though la nina below the trend, as we progress though at say 1.1DegC we will still get years of .8 DegC but we will also get years of 1.4DegC
also note the different baseline years for different data sets and of course HADCRUT does not include the high arctic
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/11/short-term-trends-another-proxy-fight/
NASA climatologist Gavin again
So here are a few things that are all equally true, conveniently plotted for your amusement:
The linear trend in HadCRUT4 from August 1997 to August 2012 (181 months) is 0.03ºC/decade (blue) (In GISTEMP it is 0.08ºC/decade, not shown).
The trend from August 1975 to July 1997 is 0.16ºC/dec (green), and the trend to August 2012 is 0.17ºC/dec (red).
The ten years to August 2012 were warmer than the previous 10 years by 0.15ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC, and which were warmer than the 10 years before that by 0.17ºC (purple).
The continuation of the linear trend from August 1975 to July 1997 (green dashed), would have predicted a temperature anomaly in August 2012 of 0.524ºC. The actual temperature anomaly in August 2012 was 0.525ºC.
that video can be seen skeptical science foster & rahmstorf graph
Others and I have reported the failing video to SkS.
.
I thought that video had been withdrawn.
See here.
sam martin
“Environmentalism” ≠ climate science.
This false equivalence is simply another denialist rhetoric used to polarise and confuse. As you can hopefully see, if you pause to consider what you have written and why you wrote it.
Radiative physics doesn’t care about your anti-environmental emoting one bit. You can be absolutely certain of that.
Consider the last glacial maximum (~25ka – 21ka) and the pre-industrial Holocene. Two radically different climate states in quasi-equilibrium.
The LGM and the Holocene are separated by a radiative forcing of about 6W/m^2 and a resulting global average temperature difference of ~4.5C. It’s immediately obvious that this yields an empirical but inclusive fast-feedback sensitivity of about 0.75C per W/m^2.
So if we manage to increase RF from CO2e (including CH4, albedo etc) to ~4W/m^2 (which seems near-certain for a doubling of CO2 280ppmv -> 560ppmv), then dT = ~3C.
There are fundamental problems with estimates for transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium sensitivity (ECS) derived from the observational record:
– They use short time periods
– They rely on uncertain data (especially OHC)
– They are excessive sensitive to natural and transient decadal OHC variability
– Forcings over the observational period very poorly constrained – especially aerosols
The result is that instrumentally-derived estimates tend to be very low compared with those derived from paleoclimate. Using *all* the evidence we have, the best estimate for ECS to 560 ppmv CO2 (a doubling of pre-industrial levels) appears to be in the range 2.5C – 3C with a TCR of ~1.5C.
It’s well worth remembering that emissions will, in all probability, rise substantially above 560ppmv, so both the TCR and ECS estimates are going to be lower than the actual response. Hence the advisability of emissions regulation sooner, rather than later, this century.
(Borked HTML, a potentially confusing second sentence *and* missing the key reference. Oh dear. Apologies, and let me try again:)
Consider the last glacial maximum (~25ka – 21ka) and the pre-industrial Holocene: two quasi-equilibrium but radically different climate states.
The LGM and the Holocene are separated by a radiative forcing of about 6W/m^2 and a resulting global average temperature difference of ~4.5C. It’s immediately obvious that this yields an empirical but inclusive fast-feedback sensitivity of about 0.75C per W/m^2 (Hansen & Sato 2012).
So if we manage to increase RF from CO2e (including CH4, albedo etc) to ~4W/m^2 (which seems near-certain for a doubling of CO2 280ppmv -> 560ppmv), then dT = ~3C.
* * *
There are fundamental problems with estimates for transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium sensitivity (ECS) derived from the observational record:
– They use short time periods
– They rely on uncertain data (especially OHC)
– They are excessive sensitive to natural and transient decadal OHC variability
– Forcings over the observational period very poorly constrained – especially aerosols
The result is that instrumentally-derived estimates tend to be very low compared with those derived from paleoclimate. Using *all* the evidence we have, the best estimate for ECS to 560 ppmv CO2 (a doubling of pre-industrial levels) appears to be in the range 2.5C – 3C with a TCR of ~1.5C.
It’s well worth remembering that emissions will, in all probability, rise substantially above 560ppmv, so both the TCR and ECS estimates are going to be lower than the actual response. Hence the advisability of emissions regulation sooner, rather than later, this century.
So-called sceptics love Otto because his model appears to show slightly less sensitivity. This neatly fits in their assertion with the models aren’t valid. And, even if they are valid, they don’t work. And, even if they do work, they’re over-stating the case. And, even if they’re not overstating the case, we’ll engineer our way out of it. And, even if we can’t engineer our way out of it, the planet will survive. And, even though the author’s interpretation differs from the false sceptics’, well, who’d trust a scientist anyway?
See? It’s a completely consistent case. And, even if it isn’t consistent, Al Gore.
Hansen!
IPCC!
JHS – If you can work past Greenfyre’s sarcasm at http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/dan-pangburn/ you can find useful information in my comments. The equation presented there has been refined. The current version, which is included in the paper at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html, calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and includes projection to 2037 assuming the phenomena that drive average global temperature continue as they have since 1895.
Some of the mistakes made by the IPCC and the Consensus are discussed at http://consensusmistakes.blogspot.com/
Do let me know when and where it’s published.
every reply from dan seems to be that every one else is too dumb to understand it ,
another load of tripe
http://www.skepticalscience.com/contradictions.php
“every reply from dan seems to be that every one else is too dumb to understand it ”
Should fit right in then.
Observational biases (not included in the video):
Coverage bias. The HadCRUT4 and NOAA temperature records don’t cover the whole planet. Omitting the Arctic in particular produces a cool bias in recent temperatures. (e.g. Hansen et al 2006, Folland et al 2013). The video avoided this problem by using GISTEMP. However the issue affects the Foster and Rahmstorf analysis of the other records.
Sea surface temperature bias. The GISTEMP and NOAA temperature records don’t include corrections for the transition from warm-biased engine room measurements to buoy measurements over the past 15 years. This produces a cool bias in recent temperature trends, although this result is based on only one study (Kennedy et al 2012).
Other short term influences (i.e. things we are trying to detect):
Changes in ocean heat uptake. A number of recent papers have found evidence that heat has been going into the oceans rather than the atmosphere recently, see in particular Balmaseda et al (2013), Guemas et al (2013), Nuccitelli et al (2012) and Levitus et al (2012).
An increase in cooling particles in the atmosphere. While we can assume a near-linear short-term response to long lived greenhouse gasses such as CO2, short-lived atmospheric constituents can violate this assumption. Chinese aerosol emissions have varied significantly over the past 16 years (Klimont et al 2013), however Murphy (2013) suggests the impact has been limited. Neely et al (2013) find a significant cooling contribution from volcanoes.
There may also be contributions from long term ocean cycles such as the AMO and PDO. Any of these factors may contribute to a slowdown in surface warming over the past 16 years.
understand why the video was taken down but it is still a good learning tool
It will be unfortunately seen as another “worse than we thought” claim
Doubtless. Contrarian framing vs. integrity.
One of the things that is not obvious is how we actually arrive at the trend
we take temperature readings on a daily basis as max and minimum in ordinary weather news
when it comes to the annual measurements we only use an average over the whole year,
we further restrict that by confining that year to a calendar year,
When we see the daily mail use a mid point on a line between 1997 and 1998 and call it July/august then the lack of understanding becomes obvious, there are no points on that line which you could call a particular month, it is just a line between two points,
so the graph as posted by sam can be deceiving.
Gavin at RC has looked at years August to July average to arrive at the 0.15Degc but that would not be obvious just looking at Hadcrut yearly averages as per the graph
I would like to see three graphs used
! trends based on yearly average, as we do
trends based on the lowest day minimum each year
trends based on the highest day maximum each year
using averages, two years could be identical but a new record high reached in one cancelled by a low period in that year,
any of that make any sense?
You could look at it this way:
HadCRUT4 1970 – 2012 July only
HadCRUT4 1970 – 2012 August only
You could look at it this way:
HadCRUT4 1970 – 2012 July only
And…
HadCRUT4 1970 – 2012 August only
Well that may keep **** busy until he returns,
monthly mean GISS, look at 2007
CO2 increase from 1800 to 2001 was 89.5 ppmv (parts per million by volume). The atmospheric carbon dioxide level has now increased since 2001 by 25.46 ppmv (an amount equal to 28.4% of the increase that took place from 1800 to 2001) (1800, 281.6 ppmv; 2001, 371.13 ppmv; May, 2013, 396.59 ppmv).
The average global temperature trend since 2001 is flat.
That is the observation. No amount of spin can rationalize that the temperature increase to 2001 was caused by a CO2 increase of 89.5 ppmv but that 25.46 ppmv additional CO2 increase had no effect on the average global temperature trend after 2001.
Atmospheric temperature ≠ the climate system. Most (>90%) of the energy accumulating in the climate system as a result of radiative imbalance caused by increasing GHG forcing is in the ocean (Levitus et al. 2012).
OHC 0 – 2000m
Your ideas are simply wrong, Dan.You have started from an incorrect conceptualisation of the climate system. Time to wipe the board and start again.
Spot on BBD, also consider the ocean exchanges both GHG and heat with the atmosphere. A not inconsequential part component of the climate system resides in the ocean – phytoplankton. Given they draw down considerable amounts of CO2, the effects of acidification having a negative effect are concerning. Classic example of an amplified feedback as warming oceans take up more Co2… and well, you know the rest.
Better explain to Dan the five crucial components of the carbon cycle. Note I’ve included estimated amounts of Co2 reservoirs for each expressed in gigatonnes:
– Atmosphere: 720 gt
– Cyrosphere: N/A
– Biosphere: 2000 gt
– Oceans: 38,400 gt
– Lithosphere (earth’s crust): 60,0000 gt (of that 4500 gt are fossil fuels such as crude, gas, coal)
Each interacts with the other – we are seeing changes in every component of the climate system. Forget land temp obs. Data from every component of the climate system is indicative of massive planetary scale changes.
Look at those numbers again Dan. What do you see?
See all those other gigatonnes? The literal billions, upon billions of tonnes of carbon? We’re digging that up and putting into the atmosphere.
Normally substantial changes to system occur over hundreds of thousands if not millions of years. We’re doing it at the rate of decades.
The problem Dan is that we’re running the carbon cycle at warp speed factor 9.
Watching – “…warming oceans take up more Co2” Did you misspeak? Warming oceans GIVE UP CO2. Haven’t you noticed? Warming beer goes flat because it gives up CO2.
Woods Hole report at http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726 states that there is approximately 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans as exists in the atmosphere. That is more than you say but the same order of magnitude.
Geocraft at http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html has a graphic that shows CO2 level and average global temperature for the last 500 million years. It shows that CO2 has been much higher than the current level for most of this time. About 440 million years ago the planet plunged in to the Andean-Saharan ice age when the CO2 level was about ten times higher than now.
The current CO2 level is still quite impoverished. Plants must sort through 2500 molecules to find the one that they can use to make food.
Not the geocraft link *again*. When will you lot learn to reference the actual scientific literature?
See Royer et al. (2004)CO2 as a primary driver of Phanerozoic climate.
If you actually bothered to read, you would begin to realise how dreadfully wrong you are, on all points.
BBD – The equation, which you can see at http://climatechange90.blogspot.com/2013/05/natural-climate-change-has-been.html calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with 90% accuracy. That leaves very little room for improvement.
Calculations, using that equation reveal that about half of the 0.74C temperature rise was do to whatever the sunspot-number time-integral is a proxy for, and the rest is attributed to net natural ocean oscillation of which the PDO is dominant. Noncondensing ghg change had no significant effect.
The large fraction of energy gain by the planet that heats the ocean (my assessment is about 96%) does not enter directly in the calculation. The effective thermal capacitance of the planet does lead to a time constant which absolutely prohibits the rapid year-to-year temperature changes reported by the various agencies. See the link for more.
Dan, I don’t mean to be harsh, but it is sometimes unavoidable: you are profoundly mistaken and utterly resistant to correction. This makes you a crank.
BBD – It does not matter what I am. The equation speaks for itself. Anyone that uses the equation will discover the same thing that I did.
That they are hopelessly wrong.
Apparently there is some part of “calculates average global temperatures since before 1900 with 90% accuracy” that you did not grasp.
Apparently there is some part of a very clearly worded comment *you* fail to grasp.
You are wrong, Dan. And since you won’t accept correction, also a crank.
End of conversation.