The American Chemical Society Climate Science Toolkit

[flacaltenn]

First, it's about 1°C, in just over a century. Moreover, that warming will remain with us for centuries, and pretty much no matter what we are doing. So, it's preposterous to speak about a "tiny ... blip." Lastly, the wild temperature fluctuation you claim could have happened just cannot, because it is, at its basis, an energy balance. There are few ways for energy to be retained in the earth's system, and there is only one way to get rid of this energy.

Yeah -- it's a blip.. Showed you +/- 0.6 swings in the HIGH RESOLUTION Greenland ice cores. And that area is not affected by a LOT of global thermal conduction routes.

There is actually ample evidence in INDIVIDUAL local proxies for climate variances of NEAR 1degC to be fairly common in the interglacial warm periods. NOT PROOF of anything. Just a reminder how little spatial and temporal resolution REMAINS in the GLOBAL studies after data crunching. It's just a flat line MEAN with a lot of noise. But even if you WANTED to claim, that the steady state temp equilibrium of the planet should have no natural variance --- Even the hockey sticks variances -- which they paint in pale colors to not draw attention, are of very high magnitude. But those show no patterns, just noise. More likely because the VARIANCE in the proxies was filtered out in the processing and mixing if it ever existed.

There is a TCS and an ECS for transient and extended climate responses. Not well solved as to the actual mechanisms. More of a modeling guesstimates.

LOTS of ways to imbalance the balance. Simply shifting the solar spectrum to more infrared thins the thermosphere.. See the thread on the latest NASA study of solar minimums on ionizing that sensitive planetary skin. And effects like THESE don't affect temperatures for decades or maybe a century AFTER they initiate. No one could measure this 30 years ago. And if there is a Grand Solar minimum, it'll be a big boost to our understanding of climate effects that aren't simple ass "correlations" with CO2.

The earth's thermal balance doesn't turn on dime everytime the CO2 goes up by 80ppm or the TSI changes by 0.4W/m2.

 

[Billy_Bob]

First, it's about 1°C, in just over a century. Moreover, that warming will remain with us for centuries, and pretty much no matter what we are doing.

LOL

Hang on to your ass as its about to be handed to you by mother nature. Within the next 20 years all the warming we have seen in the last 150 will be gone. We are entering a Major Solar Minimum and the Suns 4 primary magnetic fields are all out of phase. The last time this happened the LIA occurred and inside thirty years we dropped 2.9 deg C.. IF you think for one second that the CO2 we have placed into our atmosphere is going to stop that cooling I have news for you, It wont. Lets just hope at this point were not entering the next glacial cycle. Given the fact we have met or exceeded theoretical maximum cooling at the earths poles all bets are off... History is about to repeat itself and you alarmists are about to get kicked in the teeth by mother nature..

 

[Olde Europe]

Yeah -- it's a blip.. Showed you +/- 0.6 swings in the HIGH RESOLUTION Greenland ice cores. And that area is not affected by a LOT of global thermal conduction routes.

There is actually ample evidence in INDIVIDUAL local proxies for climate variances of NEAR 1degC to be fairly common in the interglacial warm periods. NOT PROOF of anything. Just a reminder how little spatial and temporal resolution REMAINS in the GLOBAL studies after data crunching. It's just a flat line MEAN with a lot of noise. But even if you WANTED to claim, that the steady state temp equilibrium of the planet should have no natural variance --- Even the hockey sticks variances -- which they paint in pale colors to not draw attention, are of very high magnitude. But those show no patterns, just noise. More likely because the VARIANCE in the proxies was filtered out in the processing and mixing if it ever existed.

There is a TCS and an ECS for transient and extended climate responses. Not well solved as to the actual mechanisms. More of a modeling guesstimates.

LOTS of ways to imbalance the balance. Simply shifting the solar spectrum to more infrared thins the thermosphere.. See the thread on the latest NASA study of solar minimums on ionizing that sensitive planetary skin. And effects like THESE don't affect temperatures for decades or maybe a century AFTER they initiate. No one could measure this 30 years ago. And if there is a Grand Solar minimum, it'll be a big boost to our understanding of climate effects that aren't simple ass "correlations" with CO2.

The earth's thermal balance doesn't turn on dime everytime the CO2 goes up by 80ppm or the TSI changes by 0.4W/m2.

Yep. That's just a somewhat long-winded way of saying, "I, too, don't know how the earth's energy balance could change so dramatically as to cause a temperature rise as quick as the one we are seeing, AND then suddenly reverse course and get rid of that energy just as quickly, AND without leaving a single trace of the causes, and neither of the effects of such earth-shattering events, in the earth's 'memory', but I will still insist it might have happened, and climate scientists are just too stupid / deluded / whatever to realize it."

But yes, you are right, the earth's energy balance doesn't turn on a dime, the earth's temperature even less so, and that is why your "but we could have seen a temperature spike of 1°C or bigger, AND a complete reversal in a century" is so absurd.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah -- it's a blip.. Showed you +/- 0.6 swings in the HIGH RESOLUTION Greenland ice cores. And that area is not affected by a LOT of global thermal conduction routes.

There is actually ample evidence in INDIVIDUAL local proxies for climate variances of NEAR 1degC to be fairly common in the interglacial warm periods. NOT PROOF of anything. Just a reminder how little spatial and temporal resolution REMAINS in the GLOBAL studies after data crunching. It's just a flat line MEAN with a lot of noise. But even if you WANTED to claim, that the steady state temp equilibrium of the planet should have no natural variance --- Even the hockey sticks variances -- which they paint in pale colors to not draw attention, are of very high magnitude. But those show no patterns, just noise. More likely because the VARIANCE in the proxies was filtered out in the processing and mixing if it ever existed.

There is a TCS and an ECS for transient and extended climate responses. Not well solved as to the actual mechanisms. More of a modeling guesstimates.

LOTS of ways to imbalance the balance. Simply shifting the solar spectrum to more infrared thins the thermosphere.. See the thread on the latest NASA study of solar minimums on ionizing that sensitive planetary skin. And effects like THESE don't affect temperatures for decades or maybe a century AFTER they initiate. No one could measure this 30 years ago. And if there is a Grand Solar minimum, it'll be a big boost to our understanding of climate effects that aren't simple ass "correlations" with CO2.

The earth's thermal balance doesn't turn on dime everytime the CO2 goes up by 80ppm or the TSI changes by 0.4W/m2.

Yep. That's just a somewhat long-winded way of saying, "I, too, don't know how the earth's energy balance could change so dramatically as to cause a temperature rise as quick as the one we are seeing, AND then suddenly reverse course and get rid of that energy just as quickly, AND without leaving a single trace of the causes, and neither of the effects of such earth-shattering events, in the earth's 'memory', but I will still insist it might have happened, and climate scientists are just too stupid / deluded / whatever to realize it."

But yes, you are right, the earth's energy balance doesn't turn on a dime, the earth's temperature even less so, and that is why your "but we could have seen a temperature spike of 1°C or bigger, AND a complete reversal in a century" is so absurd.

You may very well get a PERSONAL front row seat to one of those "reversals" in your lifetime if there IS a Grand Solar Minimum.. The focus on GLOBAL measurements and ONLY CO2 content of the atmos is WHY the early projections failed and critical "constants" revised down over the past 30 years. Heck, we've only been able to COLLECT adequate global information on critical climate variables since we had sophisticated satellite payloads launched. For YEARS the warmers would trot that CO2/Temperature curve co-plotted and yell "SEE? -- it's confirmed". But there's nothing about a climate thermodynamic system as complicated as our planet that should have a tracking linear output to a SINGLE VARIABLE. That's solid system analysis. ESPECIALLY with factors like the massive ocean storage and a multitude of complex feedbacks that we don't fully understand.

Everything about the public discussion of GW/CC has been "kid--proofed" down to SINGLE NUMBER arguments. Like "global" temperature or "global" climate sensitivity. The SCIENCE discussion is far more nuanced and wouldn't make great soundbites or scary ass graphics..

 

[flacaltenn]

Yeah -- it's a blip.. Showed you +/- 0.6 swings in the HIGH RESOLUTION Greenland ice cores. And that area is not affected by a LOT of global thermal conduction routes.

There is actually ample evidence in INDIVIDUAL local proxies for climate variances of NEAR 1degC to be fairly common in the interglacial warm periods. NOT PROOF of anything. Just a reminder how little spatial and temporal resolution REMAINS in the GLOBAL studies after data crunching. It's just a flat line MEAN with a lot of noise. But even if you WANTED to claim, that the steady state temp equilibrium of the planet should have no natural variance --- Even the hockey sticks variances -- which they paint in pale colors to not draw attention, are of very high magnitude. But those show no patterns, just noise. More likely because the VARIANCE in the proxies was filtered out in the processing and mixing if it ever existed.

There is a TCS and an ECS for transient and extended climate responses. Not well solved as to the actual mechanisms. More of a modeling guesstimates.

LOTS of ways to imbalance the balance. Simply shifting the solar spectrum to more infrared thins the thermosphere.. See the thread on the latest NASA study of solar minimums on ionizing that sensitive planetary skin. And effects like THESE don't affect temperatures for decades or maybe a century AFTER they initiate. No one could measure this 30 years ago. And if there is a Grand Solar minimum, it'll be a big boost to our understanding of climate effects that aren't simple ass "correlations" with CO2.

The earth's thermal balance doesn't turn on dime everytime the CO2 goes up by 80ppm or the TSI changes by 0.4W/m2.

Yep. That's just a somewhat long-winded way of saying, "I, too, don't know how the earth's energy balance could change so dramatically as to cause a temperature rise as quick as the one we are seeing, AND then suddenly reverse course and get rid of that energy just as quickly, AND without leaving a single trace of the causes, and neither of the effects of such earth-shattering events, in the earth's 'memory', but I will still insist it might have happened, and climate scientists are just too stupid / deluded / whatever to realize it."

But yes, you are right, the earth's energy balance doesn't turn on a dime, the earth's temperature even less so, and that is why your "but we could have seen a temperature spike of 1°C or bigger, AND a complete reversal in a century" is so absurd.

BTW ---- "energy balance" studies (ala Trenberth and others) are not really ENERGY. They are Power. And they lack TOTAL CONSIDERATION of time constants, storage, feedbacks and time delays. They are misnamed. And even Trenberth (an ocean expert) MISSED all the power that was "going into deep ocean storage" in his envelope calculations. About 15 years LATER -- he was all about how "the oceans ATE the GWarming".. So -- the science aint' nearly settled. Never was.

 

[Olde Europe]

BTW ---- "energy balance" studies (ala Trenberth and others) are not really ENERGY. They are Power. And they lack TOTAL CONSIDERATION of time constants, storage, feedbacks and time delays. They are misnamed. And even Trenberth (an ocean expert) MISSED all the power that was "going into deep ocean storage" in his envelope calculations. About 15 years LATER -- he was all about how "the oceans ATE the GWarming".. So -- the science aint' nearly settled. Never was.

Yes. And it is, in relevant part, the enormous energy storage capacity of the oceans that makes your "the world could warm up more than 1°C, and down again, and in no time, and all that without leaving detectable a trace", so preposterous. And that's also why you don't even have the most basic outline how such an event could be brought about. And yes, the oceans ate the surface warming (for a while); the earth is still storing energy at an unhealthy rate, even when the surface signal didn't show it at the expected magnitude. That has ended years ago.

And yes, scientists don't understand things until, finally, they understand them, and then they reverse themselves and the theories that were formerly held to be of the highest explanatory value. It's how science works, and it's also why this approach is the best humankind has at their disposal to acquire knowledge. The current CO₂-driven global warming is well understood, and nearly universally agreed upon among those who work in the field, and thus it's considered "settled". That doesn't mean all aspects thereof are completely understood, nor are all the consequences as they are projected to unfold over time. The basics, yes, that's settled.

Let's agree to disagree on that one.

 

[flacaltenn]

Yes. And it is, in relevant part, the enormous energy storage capacity of the oceans that makes your "the world could warm up more than 1°C, and down again, and in no time, and all that without leaving detectable a trace", so preposterous.

You need to get off this preposterous crap.. 1degC swings in "global temperature" can occur in any El Nino event. It's right in front of your face. Go look at UAH satellite for the 1998 and 2016 peaks. Both were events very near a FULL DegC transitioning UP and DWN in less then 4 years. Of course, that's NOT climate scale, but El Nino(Ninas) are exaggerated versions of what happens all the time. Those events are the "safety valves" for ocean heat storage.

And just like those thermodynamic elements, you have LONGER period conductors in the north/south ocean transporting currents, Rosby waves associated with jet streams and polar oscillations, solar cycles and changes in irradiation spectrum and TSI, and the tropical atmospheric conductors. Its a complicated thermodynamic system. And with any complicated system characterized by multiple periodic fluctuations of different frequency, --- from systems theory and Fourier analysis, you can get random phase alignments that can build ANY SHAPE temperature that you want.

Considering that the effects of ocean storage are likely somewhat non-linear responses to all this heat transport, you might expect some cases where a threshold is reached that opens or closes the ocean to atmos 'valves" more than other cases.

What's preposterous is to assume that ONLY ONE variable CO2 dominates all the temperature variance on the planet..

 

[Billy_Bob]

What's preposterous is to assume that ONLY ONE variable CO2 dominates all the temperature variance on the planet..

Thank You!

One variant is incapable of catastrophic anything due to these very complex systems. Its rather sad that so many are so easily duped by their ignorance..

 

[mamooth]

Hang on to your ass as its about to be handed to you by mother nature.

5 years from now, the global temperature will be warmer, and your doomsday cult will still be predicting the HolyIceAge realsoonnow.

10 years from now, it will be even warmer. Your doomsday cult will still be predicting the HolyIceAge realsoonnow.

20 years from now, even warmer. Your doomsday cult will still be predicting the HolyIceAge realsoonnow.

At this stage, you're only interesting as an example of cult psychology.