Well I Never: Study Shows Global Warming May Be Occuring Much More Slowly Than Previously Thought

[skookerasbil]

National Guard chief: Climate change possibly causing 'bigger, larger, more violent' storms
Source: The Hill

The National Guard's top general said Tuesday that climate change may be causing storms to become “bigger, larger, more violent,” which he said underscores the need to keep service members spread across the country to respond.

“I do think that the climate is changing, and I do think that it is becoming more severe,” Gen. Joseph Lengyel, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told reporters Tuesday morning in response to a question from The Hill. “I do think that storms are becoming bigger, larger, more violent. You know, I never know if this one speck of time is an anomaly or not, but, you know, we've all seen now three Category 5 storms that popped out in a period of a month.”

-snip-

Asked Tuesday how climate change has affected his preparations for natural disasters, Lengyel said recent storms underline the need to have a robust Guard presence in each state.

-snip-

The Pentagon first called climate change a national security threat during the Obama administration. Defense Secretary James Mattis also cited climate change as a national security threat during his confirmation process.

-snip-

Read more: National Guard chief: Climate change possibly causing 'bigger, larger, more violent' storms

Well now..........lets give that National Guard Chief a Blimpie Sub and a Coke!!

 

[flacaltenn]

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change.

Hogwash.. Wouldn't be worth the effort to just know the direction of a process. You can get that with paper and pencil..

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s. This is the GENESIS of the worldwide panic about man-caused global warming. CBS news once showed on Evening News a graphic of the oceans boiling with the caption 212DegF.. ALL of the panic was due to the fact that these modeled projections went BEYOND Atmos Physics and the GHouse theory and were peppered with assumptions about net positive feedbacks, trigger temps and runaway warming.. They used a "magic multiplier" for the POWER of CO2 warming based on these UNPROVEN theories called "Climate Sensitivity". This number has been REDUCED in the Scientific Literature by DAMN NEAR a factor of THREE -- since the modeling circus began..

The comment about equilibrium is a thermodynamics term. Complex and large thermal systems of ANY KIND don't instantaneously respond to thermal forcing. EXTREMELY large thermal systems like a planet, don't just have ONE time constant to "adapt" to thermal forcing. It's well accepted that certain thermal pathways in the Earth's "heat distribution" thermodynamics take up to a century to reach an equilibrium (new thermal normal from a forcing in the past). And some pathways are more on the order of a decade.

The whole concept of looking for EXACT "correlation" between CO2 and surface temp is juvenile. BECAUSE of the heat storage and delays involved in a thermo system as complex as the Earth's climate. And only the SIMPLEST of systems respond with the same SHAPE and timing of the forcing function. There is no expectation that the shape of the surface temperature RESULT, should match exactly --- any ONE of the myriad of forcing functions that affect Mean Global Temperature.

The only thing I was EVER "skeptical" about were the catastrophic "magic multipliers" on Climate Sensitivity and the catastrophic theories that gave CO2 more "warming power" than the basic science ever attributed to it. THIS is the reason that the GW crazy train has stalled and is sucking wind. NONE of those attached theories was EVER "settled science" or had "consensus". And YET -- when scientists said this "COULD HAPPEN" -- the media and politicians ran with it's GONNA happen -- or its happening RIGHT NOW..

 

[flacaltenn]

It's much more nuanced than that. The original projections back in the 1980s were apocalyptic. Largely because Climate Science was a "pretty new thing" having been given all that fancy instrumentation and satellite capability that they NEVER had before. And whenever you give a science a lot of new tools, they tend to abuse them at first. (another story for another thread)

Climate science is still a pretty new thing..and will be until probably the latter part of this century...till they get a grip on at least a good percentage of the factors that effect the climate and effect each other the idea of them actually understanding the climate to the degree that they can make rational predictions is out of the question.

Spending a lot more time on the planet's Thermodynamic modeling and less on just CO2 would be an excellent start. This was the work of Judith Curry and her group at Ga Tech and some at Max Planck Inst.

 

[flacaltenn]

but, you know, we've all seen now three Category 5 storms that popped out in a period of a month.”

The General speaks from ignorance. Harvey was never Cat 5.. Should stick to marching and cleaning their weapons.

 

[Billy_Bob]

If one takes a moment to read the study and its supplement, one finds that what has been stated/found is that the models used over a decade ago overstated the rate of warming to the extent that the goal of limiting the global temperature increase to 1.5 degrees Celsius above mid-to-late 19th century temperatures is achievable and it appears the world has about twenty more years than earlier models forecasted to achieve the objective.

What does the study not say?

• It does not refute that the Earth is warming.
• It does not refute the impacts of the warming.
• It does not refute the anthropogenic etiology of the warming.

It says it appears we have about twenty more years to "get our act together." In the scheme of planetary events, that's not a lot of time, and as any 60 year-old will attest, its also not a lot of time in scale of human events. That's important because with global warming, the point of no return is exactly that, unless it happens that we have mastered "really quick" planetary-scale terraforming by the time that point is reached.

It's much more nuanced than that. The original projections back in the 1980s were apocalyptic. Largely because Climate Science was a "pretty new thing" having been given all that fancy instrumentation and satellite capability that they NEVER had before. And whenever you give a science a lot of new tools, they tend to abuse them at first. (another story for another thread)

So -- right off the bat, these folks were cast into fame and fortune as the money and press attention multiplied and they EXPOUNDED on all things that COULD happen. They conjured up stuff BEYOND the basic Physics and Chemistry of the Atmosphere and the GHouse effect.

They told tales of Runaway Accelerations, Irreversible Trigger Points, and Net Positive Feedbacks. Scared the living SHIT out of the whole world. Built all these trippy "maybes" into most of their modeling for the next 40 years.

Well -- where I've been on this for 30 years is still the same. CO2 has LIMITED POWER to increase the surface temp at equilibrium. Pretty much confined to the basics of GHouse science without the elaborate Media attracting "trippy dreams". And 40 years LATER -- all those "expanded powers of CO2" have not manifested. Have not materialized, Have not been measured.

Why this new declaration is amazing is -- it SHOULD have been declared about 10 years ago. But it was embarrassing to comment on the failure of what skeptics call "CATASTROPHIC Global Warming" theories. THAT turkey is in the oven and almost done. THAT'S the significance of this "revelation"..

The original projections back in the 1980s

???

From the OP-er's linked article:

Computer modelling used a decade ago to predict how quickly global average temperatures would rise may have forecast too much warming, a study has found. The Earth warmed more slowly than the models forecast, meaning the planet has a slightly better chance of meeting the goals set out in the Paris climate agreement, including limiting global warming to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
​

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change. As noted in the article, the extent of the error in the models and observed temperature increases, with regard to the planetary temperature increase goals of the Paris Accord, makes for "the difference between being not doable and being just doable.”

CO2 has LIMITED POWER to increase the surface temp at equilibrium.

Well, yes, there is a limit to the impact CO2 has. Nobody's going argue with that.

• How CO2 warming is driving climate
  
• How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
  
• The correlation between CO2 and temperature
  
• Greenhouse Gases and Temperature
  
• The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

"Surface temp at equilibrium." I'm sure that means something very specific, and I'm sure too that right now, I don't know what that meaning is and/or how it differs from or similar to what climate change/global warming researchers tell us we, as a planet of people, should be concerned about. I can say that it's been my impression all along that the warming that concerned the scientific community was that of the Earth's atmosphere as a whole -- all however many cubic miles of it there are -- not merely "surface temperatures," at "equilibrium" or otherwise.

The study clearly shows all climate sensitivities are inaccurate. It shows that global warming is not due to CO2 and that there are other mechanisms responsible. The study confirms that even the LOG warming is to high in our climatic system and the the combined effect of water is a net negative forcing, not a positive one in our atmosphere as the IPCC models were based on.

All of your other links die a sorted death with this revelation. The empirical evidence clearly calls them all into question.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s.

Because the remarks in the OP's article pertain to projections/models from a decade ago.

 

[flacaltenn]

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s.

Because the remarks in the OP's article pertain to projections/models from a decade ago.

The ones from a decade ago are just "less wronger" than the ones that STARTED this panic 40 years ago..

And anyways, climate projections that can't last a decade aren't worth shit. I know they did not mean to imply that "older is better"...

 

[Old Rocks]

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change.

Hogwash.. Wouldn't be worth the effort to just know the direction of a process. You can get that with paper and pencil..

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s. This is the GENESIS of the worldwide panic about man-caused global warming. CBS news once showed on Evening News a graphic of the oceans boiling with the caption 212DegF.. ALL of the panic was due to the fact that these modeled projections went BEYOND Atmos Physics and the GHouse theory and were peppered with assumptions about net positive feedbacks, trigger temps and runaway warming.. They used a "magic multiplier" for the POWER of CO2 warming based on these UNPROVEN theories called "Climate Sensitivity". This number has been REDUCED in the Scientific Literature by DAMN NEAR a factor of THREE -- since the modeling circus began..

The comment about equilibrium is a thermodynamics term. Complex and large thermal systems of ANY KIND don't instantaneously respond to thermal forcing. EXTREMELY large thermal systems like a planet, don't just have ONE time constant to "adapt" to thermal forcing. It's well accepted that certain thermal pathways in the Earth's "heat distribution" thermodynamics take up to a century to reach an equilibrium (new thermal normal from a forcing in the past). And some pathways are more on the order of a decade.

The whole concept of looking for EXACT "correlation" between CO2 and surface temp is juvenile. BECAUSE of the heat storage and delays involved in a thermo system as complex as the Earth's climate. And only the SIMPLEST of systems respond with the same SHAPE and timing of the forcing function. There is no expectation that the shape of the surface temperature RESULT, should match exactly --- any ONE of the myriad of forcing functions that affect Mean Global Temperature.

The only thing I was EVER "skeptical" about were the catastrophic "magic multipliers" on Climate Sensitivity and the catastrophic theories that gave CO2 more "warming power" than the basic science ever attributed to it. THIS is the reason that the GW crazy train has stalled and is sucking wind. NONE of those attached theories was EVER "settled science" or had "consensus". And YET -- when scientists said this "COULD HAPPEN" -- the media and politicians ran with it's GONNA happen -- or its happening RIGHT NOW..

Well now, let us look at the predictions from the best sources in the 1980's. How about this from 1981;

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

This was regarded as alarmist when it was published. The whole article is available at the link. What has not come true in that prediction? And, really, it was made for the latter half of the 21st century, not the first half.

 

[flacaltenn]

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change.

Hogwash.. Wouldn't be worth the effort to just know the direction of a process. You can get that with paper and pencil..

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s. This is the GENESIS of the worldwide panic about man-caused global warming. CBS news once showed on Evening News a graphic of the oceans boiling with the caption 212DegF.. ALL of the panic was due to the fact that these modeled projections went BEYOND Atmos Physics and the GHouse theory and were peppered with assumptions about net positive feedbacks, trigger temps and runaway warming.. They used a "magic multiplier" for the POWER of CO2 warming based on these UNPROVEN theories called "Climate Sensitivity". This number has been REDUCED in the Scientific Literature by DAMN NEAR a factor of THREE -- since the modeling circus began..

The comment about equilibrium is a thermodynamics term. Complex and large thermal systems of ANY KIND don't instantaneously respond to thermal forcing. EXTREMELY large thermal systems like a planet, don't just have ONE time constant to "adapt" to thermal forcing. It's well accepted that certain thermal pathways in the Earth's "heat distribution" thermodynamics take up to a century to reach an equilibrium (new thermal normal from a forcing in the past). And some pathways are more on the order of a decade.

The whole concept of looking for EXACT "correlation" between CO2 and surface temp is juvenile. BECAUSE of the heat storage and delays involved in a thermo system as complex as the Earth's climate. And only the SIMPLEST of systems respond with the same SHAPE and timing of the forcing function. There is no expectation that the shape of the surface temperature RESULT, should match exactly --- any ONE of the myriad of forcing functions that affect Mean Global Temperature.

The only thing I was EVER "skeptical" about were the catastrophic "magic multipliers" on Climate Sensitivity and the catastrophic theories that gave CO2 more "warming power" than the basic science ever attributed to it. THIS is the reason that the GW crazy train has stalled and is sucking wind. NONE of those attached theories was EVER "settled science" or had "consensus". And YET -- when scientists said this "COULD HAPPEN" -- the media and politicians ran with it's GONNA happen -- or its happening RIGHT NOW..

Well now, let us look at the predictions from the best sources in the 1980's. How about this from 1981;

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

This was regarded as alarmist when it was published. The whole article is available at the link. What has not come true in that prediction? And, really, it was made for the latter half of the 21st century, not the first half.

From the guy who told CBS the oceans were gonna boil??? Where's his temperature predictions? I could be a fucking prophet telling people that "drought prone" area shift with climate.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change.

Hogwash.. Wouldn't be worth the effort to just know the direction of a process. You can get that with paper and pencil..

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s. This is the GENESIS of the worldwide panic about man-caused global warming. CBS news once showed on Evening News a graphic of the oceans boiling with the caption 212DegF.. ALL of the panic was due to the fact that these modeled projections went BEYOND Atmos Physics and the GHouse theory and were peppered with assumptions about net positive feedbacks, trigger temps and runaway warming.. They used a "magic multiplier" for the POWER of CO2 warming based on these UNPROVEN theories called "Climate Sensitivity". This number has been REDUCED in the Scientific Literature by DAMN NEAR a factor of THREE -- since the modeling circus began..

The comment about equilibrium is a thermodynamics term. Complex and large thermal systems of ANY KIND don't instantaneously respond to thermal forcing. EXTREMELY large thermal systems like a planet, don't just have ONE time constant to "adapt" to thermal forcing. It's well accepted that certain thermal pathways in the Earth's "heat distribution" thermodynamics take up to a century to reach an equilibrium (new thermal normal from a forcing in the past). And some pathways are more on the order of a decade.

The whole concept of looking for EXACT "correlation" between CO2 and surface temp is juvenile. BECAUSE of the heat storage and delays involved in a thermo system as complex as the Earth's climate. And only the SIMPLEST of systems respond with the same SHAPE and timing of the forcing function. There is no expectation that the shape of the surface temperature RESULT, should match exactly --- any ONE of the myriad of forcing functions that affect Mean Global Temperature.

The only thing I was EVER "skeptical" about were the catastrophic "magic multipliers" on Climate Sensitivity and the catastrophic theories that gave CO2 more "warming power" than the basic science ever attributed to it. THIS is the reason that the GW crazy train has stalled and is sucking wind. NONE of those attached theories was EVER "settled science" or had "consensus". And YET -- when scientists said this "COULD HAPPEN" -- the media and politicians ran with it's GONNA happen -- or its happening RIGHT NOW..

Well now, let us look at the predictions from the best sources in the 1980's. How about this from 1981;

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

This was regarded as alarmist when it was published. The whole article is available at the link. What has not come true in that prediction? And, really, it was made for the latter half of the 21st century, not the first half.

climate projections that can't last a decade aren't worth shit.

Well, here's one that's lasted for fifty years:

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C.
-- "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity"
​

Observations/measurements from the pre-industrial revolution until today match that extremely well. CO2 volume has increased by ~50% and in accordance with their modeled prediction, temperatures have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.

​

IN "Test of a decadal climate forecast," Allen et al evaluate the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree. Looking at the first chart in the paper, one sees the climate forecast published in 1999 is showed by the dashed black line. Actual temperatures are shown by the red line (as a 10-year mean) and yellow diamonds (for individual years). The graph shows that temperatures rose somewhat faster than predicted in the early 2000s before returning to the forecasted trend in the last few years.

On the more general topic of climate change modeling's accuracy, the following is informative: Climate Models and Their Critics

 

[flacaltenn]

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change.

Hogwash.. Wouldn't be worth the effort to just know the direction of a process. You can get that with paper and pencil..

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s. This is the GENESIS of the worldwide panic about man-caused global warming. CBS news once showed on Evening News a graphic of the oceans boiling with the caption 212DegF.. ALL of the panic was due to the fact that these modeled projections went BEYOND Atmos Physics and the GHouse theory and were peppered with assumptions about net positive feedbacks, trigger temps and runaway warming.. They used a "magic multiplier" for the POWER of CO2 warming based on these UNPROVEN theories called "Climate Sensitivity". This number has been REDUCED in the Scientific Literature by DAMN NEAR a factor of THREE -- since the modeling circus began..

The comment about equilibrium is a thermodynamics term. Complex and large thermal systems of ANY KIND don't instantaneously respond to thermal forcing. EXTREMELY large thermal systems like a planet, don't just have ONE time constant to "adapt" to thermal forcing. It's well accepted that certain thermal pathways in the Earth's "heat distribution" thermodynamics take up to a century to reach an equilibrium (new thermal normal from a forcing in the past). And some pathways are more on the order of a decade.

The whole concept of looking for EXACT "correlation" between CO2 and surface temp is juvenile. BECAUSE of the heat storage and delays involved in a thermo system as complex as the Earth's climate. And only the SIMPLEST of systems respond with the same SHAPE and timing of the forcing function. There is no expectation that the shape of the surface temperature RESULT, should match exactly --- any ONE of the myriad of forcing functions that affect Mean Global Temperature.

The only thing I was EVER "skeptical" about were the catastrophic "magic multipliers" on Climate Sensitivity and the catastrophic theories that gave CO2 more "warming power" than the basic science ever attributed to it. THIS is the reason that the GW crazy train has stalled and is sucking wind. NONE of those attached theories was EVER "settled science" or had "consensus". And YET -- when scientists said this "COULD HAPPEN" -- the media and politicians ran with it's GONNA happen -- or its happening RIGHT NOW..

Well now, let us look at the predictions from the best sources in the 1980's. How about this from 1981;

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

This was regarded as alarmist when it was published. The whole article is available at the link. What has not come true in that prediction? And, really, it was made for the latter half of the 21st century, not the first half.

climate projections that can't last a decade aren't worth shit.

Well, here's one that's lasted for fifty years:

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C.
-- "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity"
​

Observations/measurements from the pre-industrial revolution until today match that extremely well. CO2 volume has increased by ~50% and in accordance with their modeled prediction, temperatures have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.

​

IN "Test of a decadal climate forecast," Allen et al evaluate the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree. Looking at the first chart in the paper, one sees the climate forecast published in 1999 is showed by the dashed black line. Actual temperatures are shown by the red line (as a 10-year mean) and yellow diamonds (for individual years). The graph shows that temperatures rose somewhat faster than predicted in the early 2000s before returning to the forecasted trend in the last few years.

On the more general topic of climate change modeling's accuracy, the following is informative: Climate Models and Their Critics

The time sampling and resolution of ice core data, PARTICULARLY that kind from Anarctica, would NEVER show full amplitude variations of global mean temperature that occur faster than 1000 years. That last chart is a dishonest attempt to SUGGEST -- that you can compare temperature from ice cores to temperatures recorded HOURLY today by satellite and other modern measurement.

As for your general observation of 50% and 1DegC --- That's not what got the crazy train rolling. And if the gradient is more like 1 or 2 DegC/century --- then there never WAS a global crisis to panic the herd over. I concede somewhere about 1/2 of your 50% CO2 and 1degC could be from human emissions. So -- those numbers are right on target for RULING OUT all of the magic accelerations, feedbacks, and triggers that were imagined and SOLD to the Media and Policy Makers.

Those rates are much more like the "skeptical view" based simply on Atmos Physics and GHouse Theory. WITHOUT all the Catastrophic GW unfounded theories about the increased powers of CO2.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change.

Hogwash.. Wouldn't be worth the effort to just know the direction of a process. You can get that with paper and pencil..

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s. This is the GENESIS of the worldwide panic about man-caused global warming. CBS news once showed on Evening News a graphic of the oceans boiling with the caption 212DegF.. ALL of the panic was due to the fact that these modeled projections went BEYOND Atmos Physics and the GHouse theory and were peppered with assumptions about net positive feedbacks, trigger temps and runaway warming.. They used a "magic multiplier" for the POWER of CO2 warming based on these UNPROVEN theories called "Climate Sensitivity". This number has been REDUCED in the Scientific Literature by DAMN NEAR a factor of THREE -- since the modeling circus began..

The comment about equilibrium is a thermodynamics term. Complex and large thermal systems of ANY KIND don't instantaneously respond to thermal forcing. EXTREMELY large thermal systems like a planet, don't just have ONE time constant to "adapt" to thermal forcing. It's well accepted that certain thermal pathways in the Earth's "heat distribution" thermodynamics take up to a century to reach an equilibrium (new thermal normal from a forcing in the past). And some pathways are more on the order of a decade.

The whole concept of looking for EXACT "correlation" between CO2 and surface temp is juvenile. BECAUSE of the heat storage and delays involved in a thermo system as complex as the Earth's climate. And only the SIMPLEST of systems respond with the same SHAPE and timing of the forcing function. There is no expectation that the shape of the surface temperature RESULT, should match exactly --- any ONE of the myriad of forcing functions that affect Mean Global Temperature.

The only thing I was EVER "skeptical" about were the catastrophic "magic multipliers" on Climate Sensitivity and the catastrophic theories that gave CO2 more "warming power" than the basic science ever attributed to it. THIS is the reason that the GW crazy train has stalled and is sucking wind. NONE of those attached theories was EVER "settled science" or had "consensus". And YET -- when scientists said this "COULD HAPPEN" -- the media and politicians ran with it's GONNA happen -- or its happening RIGHT NOW..

Well now, let us look at the predictions from the best sources in the 1980's. How about this from 1981;

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

This was regarded as alarmist when it was published. The whole article is available at the link. What has not come true in that prediction? And, really, it was made for the latter half of the 21st century, not the first half.

climate projections that can't last a decade aren't worth shit.

Well, here's one that's lasted for fifty years:

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C.
-- "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity"
​

Observations/measurements from the pre-industrial revolution until today match that extremely well. CO2 volume has increased by ~50% and in accordance with their modeled prediction, temperatures have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.

​

IN "Test of a decadal climate forecast," Allen et al evaluate the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree. Looking at the first chart in the paper, one sees the climate forecast published in 1999 is showed by the dashed black line. Actual temperatures are shown by the red line (as a 10-year mean) and yellow diamonds (for individual years). The graph shows that temperatures rose somewhat faster than predicted in the early 2000s before returning to the forecasted trend in the last few years.

On the more general topic of climate change modeling's accuracy, the following is informative: Climate Models and Their Critics

And UHI had nothing to do with this? 90% of all meteorological stations are in populated areas.. Again they ignore the obvious influences to these sites... When you consider that 0.6 deg C is due to land use changes and not due to anthorprogenic causes, then you realize that 90 % of the warming seen in these stations is not happening globally. US-CRN proved this in just 10 years.. The rise is artifact not reality.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I suspect you know as well as I that models aim to be directionally correct, not precisely correct. That's especially so for super complex modeling scenarios like climate change.

Hogwash.. Wouldn't be worth the effort to just know the direction of a process. You can get that with paper and pencil..

Don't know why you ?????'d my comments on the original projections back in the 1980s. This is the GENESIS of the worldwide panic about man-caused global warming. CBS news once showed on Evening News a graphic of the oceans boiling with the caption 212DegF.. ALL of the panic was due to the fact that these modeled projections went BEYOND Atmos Physics and the GHouse theory and were peppered with assumptions about net positive feedbacks, trigger temps and runaway warming.. They used a "magic multiplier" for the POWER of CO2 warming based on these UNPROVEN theories called "Climate Sensitivity". This number has been REDUCED in the Scientific Literature by DAMN NEAR a factor of THREE -- since the modeling circus began..

The comment about equilibrium is a thermodynamics term. Complex and large thermal systems of ANY KIND don't instantaneously respond to thermal forcing. EXTREMELY large thermal systems like a planet, don't just have ONE time constant to "adapt" to thermal forcing. It's well accepted that certain thermal pathways in the Earth's "heat distribution" thermodynamics take up to a century to reach an equilibrium (new thermal normal from a forcing in the past). And some pathways are more on the order of a decade.

The whole concept of looking for EXACT "correlation" between CO2 and surface temp is juvenile. BECAUSE of the heat storage and delays involved in a thermo system as complex as the Earth's climate. And only the SIMPLEST of systems respond with the same SHAPE and timing of the forcing function. There is no expectation that the shape of the surface temperature RESULT, should match exactly --- any ONE of the myriad of forcing functions that affect Mean Global Temperature.

The only thing I was EVER "skeptical" about were the catastrophic "magic multipliers" on Climate Sensitivity and the catastrophic theories that gave CO2 more "warming power" than the basic science ever attributed to it. THIS is the reason that the GW crazy train has stalled and is sucking wind. NONE of those attached theories was EVER "settled science" or had "consensus". And YET -- when scientists said this "COULD HAPPEN" -- the media and politicians ran with it's GONNA happen -- or its happening RIGHT NOW..

Well now, let us look at the predictions from the best sources in the 1980's. How about this from 1981;

Climate Impact of Increasing Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide J. Hansen, D. Johnson, A. Lacis, S. Lebedeff P. Lee, D. Rind, G. Russell

Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960's and 1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980's. Potential effects on climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the fabled Northwest Passage.

https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1981/1981_Hansen_ha04600x.pdf

This was regarded as alarmist when it was published. The whole article is available at the link. What has not come true in that prediction? And, really, it was made for the latter half of the 21st century, not the first half.

climate projections that can't last a decade aren't worth shit.

Well, here's one that's lasted for fifty years:

According to our estimate, a doubling of the CO2 content in the atmosphere has the effect of raising the temperature of the atmosphere (whose relative humidity is fixed) by about 2 °C.
-- "Thermal Equilibrium of the Atmosphere with a Given Distribution of Relative Humidity"
​

Observations/measurements from the pre-industrial revolution until today match that extremely well. CO2 volume has increased by ~50% and in accordance with their modeled prediction, temperatures have increased by nearly (but not quite) 1 °C.

​

IN "Test of a decadal climate forecast," Allen et al evaluate the performance of a climate forecast based on data up to 1996 by comparing it with the actual temperatures observed since. The results show that scientists accurately predicted the warming experienced in the past decade, relative to the decade to 1996, to within a few hundredths of a degree. Looking at the first chart in the paper, one sees the climate forecast published in 1999 is showed by the dashed black line. Actual temperatures are shown by the red line (as a 10-year mean) and yellow diamonds (for individual years). The graph shows that temperatures rose somewhat faster than predicted in the early 2000s before returning to the forecasted trend in the last few years.

On the more general topic of climate change modeling's accuracy, the following is informative: Climate Models and Their Critics

The time sampling and resolution of ice core data, PARTICULARLY that kind from Anarctica, would NEVER show full amplitude variations of global mean temperature that occur faster than 1000 years. That last chart is a dishonest attempt to SUGGEST -- that you can compare temperature from ice cores to temperatures recorded HOURLY today by satellite and other modern measurement.

As for your general observation of 50% and 1DegC --- That's not what got the crazy train rolling. And if the gradient is more like 1 or 2 DegC/century --- then there never WAS a global crisis to panic the herd over. I concede somewhere about 1/2 of your 50% CO2 and 1degC could be from human emissions. So -- those numbers are right on target for RULING OUT all of the magic accelerations, feedbacks, and triggers that were imagined and SOLD to the Media and Policy Makers.

Those rates are much more like the "skeptical view" based simply on Atmos Physics and GHouse Theory. WITHOUT all the Catastrophic GW unfounded theories about the increased powers of CO2.

The Michael Mann parlor trick never gets old.. Tack on the instrument record with daily resolution to other records with 500-1000 year resolution... and claim its catastrophic... but if the last 500 years was averaged, their 50 year rise would vanish....

 

[Manonthestreet]

Stupid Obama ...why did he make the seas stop rising......