Quoting from your nice post: The reason the historical temperature measurements indicated a lower climate sensitivity than models or paleoclimate data is because the Earth has a fast and a slow response to increases in carbon emissions, Proistosescu said. I am pleased to see the often overlooked slow and fast response mentioned in the quote above from your post. There is a large body of evidence now supporting the finding of the slow and fast cycle, and I have commented on it previously in these forums, perhaps it was even in this thread. What I want to point out here is that the phase shift studies offer clear evidence that the fast response is driven by short term temperature fluctuation which rides on top of longer term CO2 variation driven by slower temperature variation buffered by the huge heat capacity of the oceans. Thus I hasten to point out that our Harvard friends have the relationship quite backwards, as first pointed out by Murry Salby a number of years ago. Temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent, not the other way round. The phase studies in the peer reviewed literature make this very clear. Unfortunately, while 100% of the models "predict" the past with outstanding accuracy, none yet have been shown to predict the future within the required accuracy. Another reality is that all the models predicting future warming as a result of rising CO2 must incorporate positive feedback, because, by itself, CO2's effect on temperature, without positive feedback, is negligible. However atmospheric methane can be increased by rising temperature, and the sum total effect of minor greenhouse gases, CO2, methane, freons, etc., without positive feedback, is non-negligible but small. Fortunately, although CO2 is of critical importance in maintaining our atmosphere via its metabolism in plants, its small contribution as a greenhouse gas is largely countered by its cooling effect in the outer troposphere. The Earths major greenhouse gas is water vapor. Water's effect as a greenhouse gas, however, is countered overall by its presence in its other two physical phases, liquid and solid. The net effect of water's three phases, when coupled with very effective, vertical, convective cooling provides a negative, not positive, feedback to rising temperature. Added to this is the effect of rising CO2 on plant metabolism which provides a delayed, further contribution to negative feedback. If our planet is so unlucky as to ever reach a tipping point, where the net feedback to rising CO2 becomes positive, we will all be doomed. The early models ignored vertical convective cooling, a major contributor to the Earth's cooling mechanism. Even today's models assume plant, CO2 metabolism makes a negligible contribution. The early models also failed to correctly model clouds. (Essentially the earliest models ignored clouds or any other contributing phenomenon which at that time no one had learned how to model.) Even some of today's models assume an incorrect half-life for CO2 that is in error by more than 100%; this despite the correct half life having been determined a decade ago. The dire predictions stemming from these early models had us all in great trouble well before now. Needless to say, the predictions of those models, while making eye popping press coverage, turned out to be ridiculous. Sadly, today's models are only somewhat better. Still, they require incorporation of positive feedback to show any significant contribution of rising CO2 to warming. There is a growing body of scientific evidence, however, showing that the feedback is negative; not positive. That's why any model that incorporates positive feedback must be dismissed as doubtful. One of the more interesting developments of recent years was Ferenc Miscolczi's -- the former GISS physicist-- paper concluding that feedback must be negative to maintain energy balance. This paper, although not yet fully vetted, represents a radical departure from previous efforts to understand the mechanism by which our Earth maintains its atmosphere. It is, however, by no means the only science indicating that net feedback is negative; it's just the most elegant. Any prediction based on current models must be accepted with caution. Actual temperature data, for which sampling has been greatly improved, must be shown to be accurately predicted over time by a model as a necessary condition before that model's prediction of future temperature can be regarded as reliable. We are not there yet! Unfortunately for us, the only connector between CO2 concentration and our temperature observations (which are is still not accepted as reliable by all experts) are the models, and these remain universally defective in one way or another. We are looking for net long term temperature changes on the order of ten to the minus one against a background of 24 hour temperature changes on the order of ten to the first power. We may liken this to the search for a needle in a haystack. It's an absurd media conceit, and immaterial to the question, to claim that some high percentage of scientists believe that increasing CO2 is going to result in damaging temperature increase. It is equally absurd and immaterial to think that one can prove a conjecture about a complex chaotic system using anecdotal, easily observed and correlated phenomena such as melting of the arctic ice sheet. What matters is whether the science is correct. Presently, meteorologists and atmospheric physicists, and so-called climatologists, researching and publishing in the area of climate change are divided on the specific question of whether man's contribution to atmospheric CO2 is causing, or going to cause, damaging or run away temperature increase. We had better stop listening to the media, politicians and bloggers and start listening to the experts. (see reference 3 below) What's happened to the issue of potential harm from anthropomorphically driven atmospheric CO2 increase is a fine example of how not to do science. James Hansen should be drawn and quartered for turning a conjecture, an important one at that, into a media circus long before there were reliable answers, and in the face of a growing body of countering science. What a mess he's created! It's the Lysenko affair all over again. Or as Yogi would say, were he still with us, "It's Déjà vu all over again" Our U.S. President has seemingly accomplished the impossible by making the fallout from the hopelessly muddled, climate change issue even worse by pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Accord. The goals of the accord, if reached, will be beneficial to all participating nations regardless of the CO2 issue. The U.S. made a mistake to withdraw. Perhaps there will soon enough be a remedy for this mistake. Let's hope so! ________________________ references: 1.Blowin’ in the Wind: Short-Term Weather and Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/WCAS-D-12-00048.1 2. Conflict about Climate Change at the American Meteorological Society: Meteorologists’ Views on a Scientific and Organizational Controversy http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/BAMS-D-15-00265.1 3. Meteorologists' Views About Global Warming: A Survey of American Meteorological Society Professional Members http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
Just 2 cents: Possibly the whole issue has been always a political issue, rather than a science issue. Perhaps no enough amounts of time and effort spending on science or data integrity could resolve this warming issue. As long as so a great number of voters and states in the US would still rely on farming income for their next and following generations. The farmers would not be willing to give up easily their farming business in the foreseeable future, and they also want to pass the farming to their next generations. " Meet the new US entrepreneurs farming seaweed for food and fuel As the world grows and the climate changes, there’s been fresh interest in seaweed – and a new breed of farmers are exploring how best to harness the humble plant’s benefits " https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2017/jun/29/seaweed-farms-us-california-food-fuel
I am pretty sure gavin at real climate is gavin schimidt. He said he chose to display the 95% confidence interval because he thought it made for a prettier graph than showing all the model runs. He really did not give a strong reason for saying that his choice of putting 95% confidence interval was superior to John Christy showing of 102 model projections. And now that I have been learning even more about this. those 95% lines are not the same a legitimate confidence intervals in real statistics. They are far more arbitary... because the scientists set the parameters for these models. One of the parameters I have seen use in these models... is climate sensitivity. it turns out the lower you set that parameter the closer to reality your model's projection becomes. In short... they models get publicity based on claiming massive warming and big climate sensitivity. But, to get the models to project well... they have to use low climate sensitivity. In a sense these things are not models... they are just projection algos. It can be argued those confidence interval lines are a bogus choice because they make the models look more "sciency" than they really are. I want to stress these things are not really models in sense they just take the back data and try to figure out they future... they are projections based on inputs. I would call them projection algos... rather than climate models. -- in summary... your idea that not showing the "uncertainty" makes John Christy's graph dishonest is just typical troll bullshit.
Another 2 cents: Now that the scientists has already developed how a baby can be born even with a gay father/mother by borrowing other people's womb/sperm. Or even soon male pregnancy will be available. Farmers in the US would later change mind gradually to accept same sex marriage. Perhaps by now more scientists should have invented new technologies for reducing CO2 in farming process. Or a new way of making a living from farmlands. Then the US farmers would later accept that the globe warming reality. Much more research funding should directed to that objective, starting decades ago. Instead of doing further research in finding additional data: More data - more arguments! https://elitetrader.com/et/threads/pictures-then-vs-now-the-earth-is-dying.311030/ Pictures (Then vs Now) - The Earth is Dying
In 1988 we told the world that "We only have ten years left to save the planet." In 1989, our wonderful comrades at the United [in Marxism] Nations decreed the same thing. Then during the 2000 election season our Holy Prophet Who Has Never Been Wrong, Al Gorski (Muslim name: al-goreeza) issued a fatwa that we only had ten years left to save the planet. Nobody listened. George Bush [spit, spit] won stole the election and the planet's environmental destruction continued. So, in 2006, Prophet al-goreeza issued another fatwa: we only had until last year (i.e., ten years for those of you who've had the Jiffy Lobo) to save the planet. And now, we are issuing the decree once more: Climate Scientists Spread Panic: ‘Ten Years’ to Save the Earth It's a good thing that the Sheeple have short memories. They might accuse us of "crying Wolf" or something. http://thepeoplescube.com/peoples-blog/we-have-ten-years-to-save-the-planet-t19400.html
Hey Bella, a cigarette is NOT a cool accessory. It’s just an excellent way to get cancer. (Pic: Instagram) Teeth like these won’t get you on the cover of Harper’s Bazaar. (Pic: Supplied)
Yes.... we need politicians to stand-up to the utility lobby in order to make any progress on wide-scale solar deployment. It will only come about when wide-scale pressure comes from citizens across the country -- which isn't likely in the near future.