The Climate Scientists got it wrong.

https://www.nytimes....ate-change.html

Edited by gruntguru, 11 November 2019 - 23:23.

Apparently in the recent "11,000  Scientists Sign  Climate Change Emergency etc. etc."  there was a fair proportion of "Donald Duck",  "Mickey Mouse"  and   "Elvis Presley"  in the names listed.    

That's a funny question. All scientists believe it's got warmer since some point in the past. I think we can all get on board with that. Unless you define your terms unambiguously to people as you ask them then you'll get silly results.

Note that they weren't being asked "Do (say) more than 90% of scientists who have an opinion agree that more than half the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?"

Edited by Greg Locock, 11 November 2019 - 03:55.

I've got one for ya. What percentage of TNFers think this thread will have a long life???  

Apparently in the recent "11,000  Scientists Sign  Climate Change Emergency etc. etc."  there was a fair proportion of "Donald Duck",  "Mickey Mouse"  and   "Elvis Presley"  in the names listed.    

Did Don post that on Twitter? . . . . 

 . . . . . or did you just make it up?

Edited by gruntguru, 11 November 2019 - 23:26.

That's a funny question. All scientists believe it's got warmer since some point in the past. I think we can all get on board with that. Unless you define your terms unambiguously to people as you ask them then you'll get silly results.

 

Note that they weren't being asked "Do (say) more than 90% of scientists who have an opinion agree that more than half the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic?"

The graphic quotes three different questions (same question quoted three different ways?).

Of the three this one makes sense to me:

 

Do you believe that half of climate scientists or fewer, think that human-caused global warming is happening?

Edited by gruntguru, 11 November 2019 - 23:25.

Professor Micky Mouse from Namibia, Albus Dumbledore, Aramantina Aardvark, and others signed it. The list of signatures is currently blocked.

Um, don't understand your point. if you ask people technical questions without defining the terms in context then you'll get confusing results.

They asked Average Joe USA what proportion of climate scientists believe in AGW. Not really a technical question.

Not according to the graphic you quoted they didn't. You've assumed AGW not GW.

Quoting from the graphic

 

 

believe that half of climate scientists or fewer, think that human-caused global warming is happening

Oops, I was reading the red one, i assumed that was the important one. Sorry. Hmm, yes well the scientists certainly are failing to get their message across. Unfortunately, and this applies to both 'sides', if you lie with dogs you will get fleas, and there are so many non scientists throwing up any old blather in support of their position that the public at large are just fed up with the whole thing.

FWIW, I can just support the view that >50% of the warming since 1950 is anthropogenic in origin, which is probably the most analytical phrasing for the question. That comes from considering the amount of FF burnt, the likely residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere, and the gas properties of CO2.

But, it doesn't lead to any particularly worrying warming by 2100, 0.9 to 1.6 +/- 0.6 compared with 1880 depending on your assumptions for CO2 growth in the future. (+2ppm/year to RCP8.5). As of 2018 we were at +1.0 deg C. Various shorter term effects are much stronger than CO2, we happen to be at a high for some of them . This is a statistical model it just calls everything that isn't CO2 noise.

 

the public at large are just fed up with the whole thing

In the developed world that mostly only applies to the US and Australia.

Edited by gruntguru, 13 November 2019 - 02:25.

It is slightly ironic that Australia's  current drought appears to be due to abnormally cool ocean surface temperatures to the northwest  of Oz/Indonesia region.  The cool waters have also stopped Indo's  monsoon season.  What we need is more GW - not less.      

More GW just melts more polar ice and cools the ocean surface.

More GW just melts more polar ice and cools the ocean surface.

 Are you serious? - or just attempting to take the Michael?   

Ocean temp is a can of worms from beginning to end. The same heat energy that would warm the entire atmosphere by 1.0 deg C would heat the ocean, on average by 0.001 deg c, which is unmeasurable even in a lab, using the normal sensors https://www.picotech...re-measurements. Most discussions of ocean heat energy assume that stuff we can't measure stays the same, until they need it to do the opposite.

 Are you serious? - or just attempting to take the Michael?   

More serious than your post deserved!

 

It is slightly ironic that Australia's  current drought appears to be due to abnormally cool ocean surface temperatures to the northwest  of Oz/Indonesia region.  The cool waters have also stopped Indo's  monsoon season.  What we need is more GW - not less.

Ocean temp is a can of worms from beginning to end. The same heat energy that would warm the entire atmosphere by 1.0 deg C would heat the ocean, on average by 0.001 deg c, which is unmeasurable even in a lab, using the normal sensors https://www.picotech...re-measurements. Most discussions of ocean heat energy assume that stuff we can't measure stays the same, until they need it to do the opposite.

In spite of that there is consensus that the oceans are warming - the majority of the excess heat has gone into the oceans.

Sure. That's the consensus, and from the limited data we have some bits of the ocean have got warmer. Some have not, and the vast majority is unknown. On balance I suspect we'd have been very unlucky to deploy the ARGO floats just in the bits that give a warming bias. The surface of the pacific and some of the north atlantic actually cooled by 1 deg between 2005 and 2012, the sea of Japan warmed by 2 deg c. On average, across all depths, the warming was about 0.02 deg C, in 7 years. So that would be enough to warm the atmosphere by 20 deg C. in 7 years. How on earth can the atmospheric  computer models work in the face of such a huge discrepancy? They are modelling 5% of the energy. (The answer is fudge factors).

and then there's this https://journals.sag...830509787689141 haven't read it, but consensus !=science.

Edited by Greg Locock, 17 November 2019 - 22:41.

97% of scientists believe that  Global Warming/Climate Change is a reality  - any post on this forum that disagrees with this proven fact  should be deleted.

 Diesel evaporates faster than petrol - proven fact.

Israel Folau's  view that  that the current drought/bushfires etc.  are God's punishment  is about on a par with the idiotic  Greens/Lefties  opinion as to what causes GW/CC.    

Agree with you on Israel Folau.

"Idiotic Greens/Lefties"? Really? So anyone that believes a consensus reached by 97% of the experts (as opposed to believing Andrew Bolt? . . Alan Jones? . . . Miranda Devine?) is an idiot?

Here's a question for you. 97% of experts in the field agree that GW is happening and human activity is the primary cause - with 95% confidence. I am happy to go along with that.

You believe that they are wrong on one or both counts (GW and AGW). What confidence do you have in your belief? (0 - 100%)

A couple more you might like to try:

Do you believe in the existence of (and at what confidence level?) . . . anti-matter? . . . dark matter? . . . dark energy? . . evolution? . . . God?

Edited by gruntguru, 18 November 2019 - 22:45.

 After years of debate on this forum it is pretty clear that neither side is going to come up with a telling/winning argument about the existence or otherwise of GW.   The debate comes down to how do you prove or disprove something that is intangible.  Maybe the best way is to make a comparison  between  the Cult of GW  and religion/the existence of God (possibly the most important "intangible"  on your list).   I realize that I am not the first to make a comparison between  "believers" in GW and  "believers"  in the existence of God.  Worldwide there are millions of priests/vicars/imams/witchdoctors etc.  -   97% (or at least a big proportion)  are fervent believers in God.  The priests etc. would be the equivalent  of your "scientists".  Half the world's  population are believers -  quite a large percentage of these are fervent enough to blow themselves (and other people)  to bits.  Would they have built those huge cathedrals if God didn't exist;  would you be able to get a PhD. in Theology from Cambridge, would the Pope have such a magnificent Hat if it wasn't all true?  How Dare You, how dare you (to quote young Greta)  not believe.     (I am assuming that, as a "card-carrying" Leftie you have strong God-disbeliever tendencies).  The point is it that doesn't matter how many scientists /people etc think GW is real  it doesn't make it so.  

   The similarities between the Cult of GW and religion are remarkable - from doomsday predictions  to the indoctrination and demonstrating in the streets  of kids (whose knowledge of climate matters probably amounts to wondering where the sun goes on a cloudy day).  I could write endlessly about the similarities - but I won't - I think you get the idea.  

  Am I a believer in God?  - there does seem to be an oddly-structured  order to the world as if there were some intelligence behind it.  I noticed at high school that everything from the various laws of motion to thermodynamics etc.seemed to obey  certain formulas  - nothing seemed to just happen in a chaotic uncontrolled fashion.  But is there a God?  Buggered if I know - but I am not about to bow down before Him (be very risky  if there was a Catholic priest nearby anyhow).   Is GW real?  Buggered if I know - but I suspect  that it's not going to cause any real damage - nature will adapt to it.

 I dislike religion - but I like Christmas - 97% of kids (including me)  believe in Santa.  

 I think that no sane, intelligent person should have an absolute belief  in anything. For all we know our very existence may be just a dream (or  someone's dream).     

Edited by Kelpiecross, 21 November 2019 - 05:13.

 I think that no sane, intelligent person should have an absolute belief  in anything. For all we know our very existence may be just a dream (or  someone's dream).     

That is all I needed to hear.

And therein lies the difference between climate change and religion.

 

97% of experts in the field agree that GW is happening and human activity is the primary cause - with 95% confidence. I am happy to go along with that.

And therein lies the difference between climate change and religion.

I think is very rare for any deeply religious person to not have, or at least not to have had, doubts.  The consequence is that they put their trust in their faith, and trust that their faith will be rewarded.

Science is, well, science.  Faith is not involved, it is about hard evidence.  There are sceptics, doubters and deniers in both domains - and it is much easier to give a hearing to those pertaining to faith.

Skeptics of the sciences, of facts, of evidence, they fall into line with anti-vaxers, astrologers, and the other forms of quackery that abound in this 'enlightened' age. 

Too true GreenMachine. The internet and social media give too much voice to quacks and conspiracy theorists.

Edited by gruntguru, 24 November 2019 - 21:56.

Too true GreenMachine. The internet and social give too much voice to quacks and conspiracy theorists.

 Like GW enthusiasts.

I think is very rare for any deeply religious person to not have, or at least not to have had, doubts.  The consequence is that they put their trust in their faith, and trust that their faith will be rewarded.

 

Science is, well, science.  Faith is not involved, it is about hard evidence.  There are sceptics, doubters and deniers in both domains - and it is much easier to give a hearing to those pertaining to faith.

 

Skeptics of the sciences, of facts, of evidence, they fall into line with anti-vaxers, astrologers, and the other forms of quackery that abound in this 'enlightened' age. 

I have *significant* doubts about the testing I personally do, and I do them in the most scientific manner I can. I don't trust simulation data much unless it's been validated extensively and even then I only use it 'directionally'. Does this make me anti-science? No, it means I understand that there are countless variables and conditions for which I cannot adequately account or predict. It means I understand simulation is a tool, not gospel. It means I've been wrong so many bloody times that even if I'm thoroughly convinced of something that's no justification for calling it a 'fact' or accepting it axiomatically.

If you think that science doesn't require faith, then you are not fully appreciating either.

   Is GW real?  Buggered if I know - but I suspect  that it's not going to cause any real damage - nature will adapt to it.

 

    

Of course nature will adapt to it. It did on Venus as well.

The question is, what sort of life will be existing, and how, on Earth in let's say 1000 years.

But since this is well beyond my life time, I could not be buggered to worry about human-induced climate chance, no?

Nature is adapting to the presence of humans as well. Not only are we in the middle of a mass extinction (an alarming reduction in the number of species), there is a huge reduction in the populations of those species that are still here.

Does it matter? Anyone with even a smidgen of ecological nous would be very worried.

Edited by gruntguru, 27 November 2019 - 22:05.

https://newatlas.com...in-2018-record/  Highlights: (lowlights?  ) 

In 2018, the globally-averaged concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere was 407.8 parts per million (ppm), a new record high that hasn’t been seen in millions of years.

“It is worth recalling that the last time the Earth experienced a comparable concentration of CO2 was 3 to 5 million years ago,” says Petteri Taalas, Secretary-General of WMO. “Back then, the temperature was 2° to 3° C (3.6° to 5.4° F) warmer, sea level was 10 to 20 m (33 to 66 ft) higher than now.”

So atmospheric CO2 is up 50% (130 ppm) from pre-industrial revolution levels. Pre-historically a 100 ppm increase has taken between 5,000 and 20,000 years. The last 100 ppm increase has taken 120 years.

Edited by gruntguru, 28 November 2019 - 02:03.

 Apparently the Australian Bureau of Meteorology  has been discovered to have been "massaging/adjusting" their temperature records so as to show an increase in the number of  "Very Hot Days"  (over 40degrees C) per year.  The original  "unmassaged"  figures show no increase in VHTs/per year  over  the last 100 years.     I would imagine that foreign BOMs are probably far more dishonest than the Oz BOM.     

 Apparently the Australian Bureau of Meteorology  has  . . . .      

Apparently not . . . https://theconversat...ther-data-31009

KC. Whatever you would like to see - you can find it on the net.

Edited by gruntguru, 28 November 2019 - 22:20.

It seems we have now entered the second dark age where science and institutions like NASA and the BOM are to be ridiculed and the opinions of right wing journalists pushing the agenda of big business are to be revered as the new prophets. Arguing the semantics of climate science is irrelevant. We know the climate is changing, perhaps more rapidly in some places than others, but it is definitely happening. Most of the non-believers want us to take a black-and-white view of the topic; either drive a Dodge Ram truck or live in a cave and weave baskets. It doesn't have to be this way and sensible compromise is the way forward. At the end of the day we just need to pollute less and there is plenty of alternative technology to help us do so. Yes, it will mean a change to the world economy and that will most certainly adapt. If we do nothing the consequences are most likely to be catastrophic. The question that never gets asked in this debate is why wouldn't we want to pollute less? It's a no-brainer.

"The question that never gets asked in this debate is why wouldn't we want to pollute less? It's a no-brainer."

No, meaningful reductions in CO2, even if that is a good thing, have significant financial consequences. While the idiocracy is anti nuclear there is no path to affordable reductions in CO2. Once you hit 20% renewable for electricity generation you need matching energy storage or fossil fuel backup, ie building 2 things to get 1 things output. Read https://www.withouthotair.com/ for a rational discussion on the example of the UK.

While the idiocracy is anti nuclear there is no path to affordable reductions in CO2. Once you hit 20% renewable for electricity generation you need matching energy storage or fossil fuel backup, ie building 2 things to get 1 things output. 

A couple of those points are debatable.

 -  Semantics maybe, but even if you accept the 20% limit for renewable generation without storage, there is a big chunk of affordable reductions right there through increasing the renewables % up to 20.

 -  "Matching storage" beyond 20% renewables? What level of storage would that be? To my mind, as the level of renewables increases, the variability reduces - particularly across geographically "large" grids. Regardless of generation type, any network needs to have a large dynamic range simply to match the variability of demand. Fossil fuelled (and nuclear) networks have problems with this already, needing gas peaking units and or storage. (Coal and Nuclear are called "base load" not because they are reliable but because they are crap at responding to demand fluctuations). So a good deal of the "matching storage" required already exists in the form of pumped hydro, and gas peaking units. Add to that the growing quantity of battery storage both large scale and distributed (households and in the future - EVs).

I guess a lot of this depends on the capacity of the generation. If the "averaged output" of the generation is similar to the demand peaks (an oversized system) the need for storage would be minimal. The viability of this strategy would be especially strong if transmission lines start running between countries and even continents. Australia already has a link to Tasmania with a duplicate on the drawing board and a proposal exists to build a 10 GW solar farm in northern Australia to export electricity to Singapore. 

 - Geographically large grids - especially East-West connections can smooth the variability of both demand and supply.

A couple of those points are debatable.

 

 (Coal and Nuclear are called "base load" not because they are reliable but because they are crap at responding to demand fluctuations)

That sounds like a criticism one in a speedboat might have of an ocean liner. Each has its place.

"The question that never gets asked in this debate is why wouldn't we want to pollute less? It's a no-brainer."

 

No, meaningful reductions in CO2, even if that is a good thing, have significant financial consequences. While the idiocracy is anti nuclear there is no path to affordable reductions in CO2. Once you hit 20% renewable for electricity generation you need matching energy storage or fossil fuel backup, ie building 2 things to get 1 things output. Read https://www.withouthotair.com/ for a rational discussion on the example of the UK.

How we have done things in the past isn't necessarily how things will be in the future. Massive privatised power plants may go the way of the dodo when you consider the costs to build and maintain the plant and maintain the power grid. Perhaps the future will be mini power stations attached to home or business (or shared between small groups of buildings) Once your initial setup costs are recouped, you are basically getting free power. This is certainly happening in Australia with solar panels becoming increasingly popular and although most are still attached to the grid, with the rapidly developing renewable technology, the potential is there to go off grid in the future. Search out the documentary The Third Industrial Revolution for more information.Think about it, no poles and wires to maintain and no incredibly expensive power plants. Could this be the real reason the big polluters don't want you to believe in climate change?

Greg, you didn't answer my question regarding pollution. CO2 emissions are only part of the enormous amount of waste we are pumping into the atmosphere, the ground and our streams and oceans. We know many of these products are carcinogenic and you only need to read the warning labels on products you buy to see how toxic they are to humans and other life forms. This is today's knowledge and the true scale of the mass poisoning will not be known for years or even generations to come. If we could reduce our overall pollution, and as a direct consequence CO2, I can't see how that could be anything other than a good thing?

"The question that never gets asked in this debate is why wouldn't we want to pollute less? It's a no-brainer."

No, meaningful reductions in CO2, even if that is a good thing, have significant financial consequences. While the idiocracy is anti nuclear there is no path to affordable reductions in CO2. Once you hit 20% renewable for electricity generation you need matching energy storage or fossil fuel backup, ie building 2 things to get 1 things output. Read https://www.withouthotair.com/ for a rational discussion on the example of the UK.

 The Third Industrial Revolution for more information.Think about it, no poles and wires to maintain and no incredibly expensive power plants. Could this be the real reason the big polluters don't want you to believe in climate change?

 

 

Gee, you must share thought waves with the Greenies in the U.S., who plan to wave their magic wand, though it is attached to taxpayers wallets.  

Search out the documentary The Third Industrial Revolution for more information.Think about it, no poles and wires to maintain and no incredibly expensive power plants. Could this be the real reason the big polluters don't want you to believe in climate change?

 

Gee, you must share thought waves with the Greenies in the U.S., who plan to wave their magic wand, though it is attached to taxpayers wallets.  

 

Sorry, I am not seeing the link.

To make things easy for the reader I wish to throw my views on climate change out there for you all to either except or argue with. I will discuss; is climate change real, is CO2 the culprit and where to for the future.

I will be forever grateful that in 1949/50 I came under the influence of Francis Patrick Scelonge; Mr Scelonge to me. He was my first formal teacher of science who with many others opened the field of science to my eyes.

Mr S's first task was to teach us what the true processes and method of science. These started to be fromalised about 1650. Today they are recognised as having variously between five and eight formal steps:

1. Clearly state a proposition that we wish to examine and hopefully prove.

2. Examine and detail all of the facts that we can find that might affect our study.

3. Formalise a theory or hypothesis that seems to fit.

4. Design an experiment or series of experiments that will prove/disprove our hypothesis/theory.

5. If the experiments prove our theory we may claim that the the theory is a scientific conclusion and after enough positive testing and examination can be proclaimed a scientific law.

6. If the theory does not hold up then it must be modified and the process restarts at a suitable place in the above.

The real problem with climate change discussion over the last 25 years is that many (and most of the vocal) proponents have claimed as proven beyond doubt propositions that at best have not been tested beyond the point of theory by the steps above.

This is because most are either unaware of scientific method or wish to short change it or fail to realise the complexities that of climate science that require copious quantities of knowledge of chemistry, physic and mathematics all interlocked.

I won't dig into the long term history of climate change as anybody that has examined world history has to recognise that over many Thousands of years and and centuries that the climate is constantly changing and with it ocean levels. England at one time was joined to Europe, Greenland was farmed and on-foot movement of peoples allowed vast habitation across areas now requiring ships. The archeologists and anthropologists have well proven past periods of heating and cooling.

Fortunately, science and communication has progressed since about 1850/60 that have allowed suitably accurate land and sea temperature records that we have quite a good handle on world temperatures in the ensuing 170 or so years. I have relied since the 1990's on using the records of the US NOAA and NASA to form my own opinions. Actually my interest in energy use goes back to the 1950's and was well solidified by1980 at which point I was one of the two people most responsible for bring natural gas to the Sydney NSW basin. Prior to that Sydney used very dirty coal gas, oil based fuels, coal and wood for industry and domestic use.

By the very early 1970's the world energy picture was driven to chaos when Saudi Arabia nationalised its oil company and put a major crunch on world energy supply and prices. I ended up appointed to two US Government/Industry formal bodies to work that country out of its energy and environmental problems. In a very short time we brought about many changes that guaranteed the US economy and did marvelous things for its environment.

By 1985 I found myself on a Western Australian Government/Industry body formed to advise it on its response to the Kyoto Accords, which in turn found me informally advising into the Premiers Department on the same as well as other energy matters. In between times I was busy in industry and also lecturing at Curtin University for 14 years in Masters degree energy mangement and economics in financial decision making.

Before I try to unravel what data is telling us about our climate it is worthwhile to note that Albert Einstein was once quoted as saying, “We still do not know one thousandth of one percent of what nature has to reveal to us.”

The real problem is that the world's temperatures vary wildly even on a year to year basis. I use some well regarded statistical methods to smooth the data and to identify when changes to trends occur.

Applying the very well regarded NOAA/NASA temperature data one can determine:

1. In the 30 years between 1880 and 1910 the world's temperatures increased at a rate of 0.82 degrees C per century.

2. The next trend change occurred for the 36 years from 1910 to 1946. In this period warming increased to the rate of 1.29 deg C per century.

3. The real kicker was for the 30 year period from 1944 to 1974. In this time frame there were real concerns that the world was cooling and dire things like starvation were facing us. There was next to no temperature rise over this whole period, (0.07 C rate per century) and many consecutive years saw substantial temperature decreases.

4. At the end of this flat period we had 23 years where the world temperature increased at the rate of 1.83 deg C per century, (years 1975 to 1998).

5. From 1998 we had a short period of little increase but overall since then we have been increasing at the rate of 2.23 deg C per century.

(Please note that I have stated all numbers in degrees per century because using degrees per year looses impact due to so many zeroes after the decimal point.)

So what does this tell us? It confirms the long term climate changes over centuries continues but that there is a tendency for the existence of discrete 30 year (+/-) periods of rate change.

Is CO2 the culprit? The data does not provide a viable corelation but that there are certainly many other factors working in conjunction with CO2. Unfortunately, as much as I have searched I can find no access to the scientific basis behind the popular claims for future temperatures. I would love to see if any of the trend changes that a note above can be or were seen by such scientific work that so many swear as being viable.

And of course, it is impossible to set up any experiments as noted in step 4 as taught by Mr Scelonge. But if the scientific basis for the future estimates can not identify the past with any accuracy one must seriously question their viability for estimating the future.

At the beginning of this treatise I raised the issue of “where to” for future temperatures. Given that temperatures over the past 140 years have increased at about the rate of 1 deg C per century that the future increase will be at least above that. Given that the world population will likely level out some time around 2050/60 and that the in built inertia of technical development application is being overcome that the recent rate of an additional 2.23 deg C per century (from 1998 to 2098) is a pretty good estimate not to be exceeded in our life times.

Regards :-)

I think the major weakness with that approach is that you've only got 4 independent thirty year periods to analyse - that's a general problem with CC, the lack of long term instrumental records.

My suspicion is that there is a very strong (say 0.6 deg C pk-pk) sinewave with a period of 60-70 years superimposed on any other long term trend. This is so powerful that even if CO2 drives temperature, the temperature regularly plateaus as the sine wave goes negative.

The most likely cause of that cycle is the Multi Decadal Oscillation in ocean currents. As it happens I did this a long time ago. I no longer think that the climate sensitivity is as high as 1.9965 (that is a separate issue), but that was where this curve fit ended. up. This shows the effect of adding a 71 year cycle to the CO2 driven trend.

As to trends- I looked into whether there was a formal approach for breaking a time sequence up into a series of contiguous straight lines, of arbitrary period. It turns out there is, but you have to define the break points yourself. http://www.golovchen...l_fit/index.htm So there is still a judgment call. This is typical of modern machine learning, it looks like there's a solution, but then Bang! you still have to make some decisions yourself.

So i wandered off to look at my favorite long term temperature record, HADCET, the instrumental record for central England.

The black line is an optimised linear trend fit with breakpoints for the blue data. The circles are 11 year moving averages and the orange line is just a linear regression. The 60-70 year sine wave no longer seems especially prominent

Oh I forgot this one. Back to HADCRUT4, ie global. So the red line is the 31 year simple moving average. The orange line is the 1960 to 1990 curve moved back to 1900, and then superimposed on the real curve. I have had climate busybodies tell me the agreement is not good. Or there's something wrong with HADCRUT4.

To me the agreement is VERY good. Clear break of trend though, if you take 1960-2000 rather than1960-1990.

BTW your chart legend says 1960-1930 which confused me for a minute.

I think the major weakness with that approach is that you've only got 4 independent thirty year periods to analyse - that's a general problem with CC, the lack of long term instrumental records.

 

My suspicion is that there is a very strong (say 0.6 deg C pk-pk) sinewave with a period of 60-70 years superimposed on any other long term trend. This is so powerful that even if CO2 drives temperature, the temperature regularly plateaus as the sine wave goes negative.

 

The most likely cause of that cycle is the Multi Decadal Oscillation in ocean currents. As it happens I did this a long time ago. I no longer think that the climate sensitivity is as high as 1.9965 (that is a separate issue), but that was where this curve fit ended. up. This shows the effect of adding a 71 year cycle to the CO2 driven trend.

I prefer your addition of a sinusoidal function. Most trends in nature do not exhibit discontinuities.

If the multi-decadal oscillation in ocean currents is influencing the atmospheric temperature, would it not be fair to guess that the heat flow to the oceans mirrors the heat flow to the atmosphere ie the pause in atmospheric warming coincides with an acceleration in oceanic warming?

Edited by gruntguru, 23 December 2019 - 03:28.

Yes, but the problem is that the heat capacity of the oceans is 1000 times that of the atmosphere, so 10 deg C in the atmosphere would warm the ocean by an unmeasurable 0.01 deg c, if it was evenly spread (which it obviously isn't). This is Trenberth's missing heat argument, basically. I think it has a lot of merit, but as usual, we don't have a whole damn lot of data to look at. The Argo floats have only been around for 20 years, so sorting out the noise in the signal is a big problem.

I think I'll have another go at HADCET and see if I can get a sinusoid in sync with the HADCRUT one in the 20th century. 

Biggest problem I see in all of this is the quality of the data.  

Temperature data is weak at best and over such a short period of time, ~1890 and of limited geography and accuracy.  

Proxy data is, well, proxy data, and if you accept the assumptions then you also know that a large degree of smoothing takes place making short term trends impossible to differentiate.

Satellite data since 79 shows warming at about a 1.0ºC per century but some/part/all of that should/may/be because we were coming out of a cool period (Little Ice Age) which followed the Medieval Warm Period........  back to the last glacial period.  

Agree with Greg, the ability to measure ocean heat content, 75% of the planet's surface, to the accuracy required to say much of anything is not currently possible and probably never will be.  

Time will tell if the climate scientists™ got it right or wrong and as far as stopping it, well, that is just never going to happen. Who knows, maybe CO2 will buy is a hundred years before we head into the next glacial period whenever that might come.  

Last.  Science is not a consensus sport.  Science is in part defined by the scientific method.  

The proxies are a debacle. Mann's hockeystick relied heavily on Briffa's work on tree rings, which, if you continue them into the 20th century show a temperature /decline/. I am not claiming there is a temperature decline, I am claiming that tree rings are lousy thermometers now, and probably always were. Anyone who has ever grown a tree would probably agree.

Did Don post that on Twitter? . . . . 

 

 . . . . . or did you just make it up?

Reported widely in the media.

Climate change??? The greatest buzz word of the decade. A huge great tax on civilisation with power prices

So much of it is bullshit science, as many scientists will agree with.

BUT we should be limiting what we put into the air, worse rivers and aquifers. But that can be done without killing civilisation with taxes.

At Xmas lunch this came up with some telling me that I should have solar panels and a battery. What they cannot understand is the only reason all of this is viable because the lack of cheap baseload power has made electricity so bloody expensive and the adhoc ugly roof generation is heavily subsidised by us without ugly rooves.

Ugly rooves and ugly skylines [windmills] will not 'save' the planet. Just make it a LOT harder to afford to live.

This last few weeks here in Oz we have all the climate change numpties waffling about climate change causing fires. 

Most of the fires are caused by arsonists, or mechanical or human error. More than one fire has been started by failing windmills, more than one by electricity substations failing and a LOT though lack of maintenance around power lines. Including this weeks Adelaide Hills fires. Yet again!!

And over the years lightning has caused more fires than all humans! Fact!

IF potential fire areas were cleared properly, undergrowth burnt off regularly. Like the Aboriginals did for thousands of years before white civilisation.  That is where too many fires take massive hold, year in year out for the last 4 or 5 decades.  Limit fuel mean limiting fires. Quite simple, but the greenie idiots are very simple. 

Bushfires produce a LOT of greenhouse gases, limit the fires = less gases. A bigger problem than efficient coal generation of electricity.

Volcanoes too ofcourse figure greatly in those stats as does methane from bovines,, both with 2 and 4 legs!! Destroy all cattle which will in turn naturally destroy so many humans will save the planet too.

And our self appointed climate expert that 10 years ago was waffling that sea levels would rise metres and the Murray would never flow again. As he is now living in an expensive beach front home and the Murray has flooded yet again as it does nearly every decade. And ofcourse IF the take from the Murray was not huge that would mean more floods but so much is used for irrigation and water for all the towns as well as Adelaide and Melbourne.

Though even those figures are being skewed as currently  our in SA liquid electricity [desal] plant is being run flat out subsidise water use from NSW. VERY expensive water.

And metro temp readings,, the higher the volume per acre of humans and buildings the hotter those cities are getting. But gee the 'experts' do not think of that!