bdgwx

Just understand that natural CO2 molecules have the same radiation behavior as anthroprogenic CO2 molecules. So an anthrprogenic pulse of CO2 (like with fossil fuel combustion and cement production) will lead to the same amount of warming as a natural pulse of CO2 (like which occurred during the PETM) given the same magnitude of the pulse. In that manner the laws of physics don't really care how the CO2 got into the atmosphere. I also sense a bit of the logical fallacy affirming a disjunct. Just because CO2 was naturally modulated in the past doesn't mean that it can't be anthroprogenically modulated today and cause warming. And yes, CO2 levels were much higher in the past. This is an essential piece in the puzzle in solving the faint young Sun problem. Remember, solar output is about 1% weaker for every 120 million years in the past. 600 mya the solar radiative force was about -12 W/m^2 (see Gough 1981). So it would take ~9.5x the amount of CO2 just to offset the reduced solar forcing of the past relative to today (note that 5.35 * ln(9.5) = +12 W/m^2).

I believe the point of the graph was to test your comprehension of noisy information. This is actually a carefully studied topic in academia especially in the context of climate data in which there is a disproportionate number of analysis out there in the blogosphere that suffer from various cognitive biases. I want you to get started with this paper. Daron et al, 2015: Interpreting climate data visualisations to inform adaptation decisions There are many well documented cognitive biases that influence an individual's comprehension of a graph. They include but are not limited to anchoring, framing, etc. In a nutshell when individuals are presented with a plot of noisy data some of them are incapable of mentally forming a linear or exponential regression trendline in their head.

Also per the NSIDC 5-day average 10/17/2019 marks the all time highest negative anomaly on record. We are 3.065 sq km below the 1981-2010 climatological average. This breaks the 3.048 record set on 10/9/2012. In other words, we have less sea ice (in terms of extent) relative to average than at any point in the satellite era.

Per NSIDC the daily extent on 10/17 was 5.374e6. On this date in 2012 and 2016 was 6.082e6 and 5.954e6 respectively and the climatological average is 8.470e6. Obviously 2019 is yet another year among recent years with lackluster sea ice extents in the NH. And the SH isn't picking up the slack like it was prior to 2016. Globally sea ice extents are at record lows. In fact, globally sea ice extents have spent more time below -4σ than it has above -2σ since 2016. That is certainly noteworthy.

Yes. UAH's TLT product is too high to be a reliable proxy for the surface temperature. Obviously that raises concerns with contamination from the cooling stratosphere, but its been suggested that there are other methodological problems that may be partly to blame for their significantly lower warming trend estimate.

I think the flag made sense at the time. I have to be honest...my first thought was that something may have been wrong with the data. That was before I had learned of the record breaking SSW event in the SH and the RSS data. Looking back through commentary it appears like a few experts had already expected UAH and RSS to record these unusually large regional anomalies and modestly large global anomalies. Until this event I had no idea a SSW event in the SH could cause such a dramatic change in the global mean temperature. Fascinating stuff. BTW...Spencer and Christy have confirmed that their data is correct. This statement now appears in the data files. *****UPDATE 4 Oct 2019***** After further analysis, September 2019 values are credible. see https://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/10/record-antarctic-stratospheric-warming-causes-sept-2019-global-temperature-update-confusion/

I'll go ahead and get this kicked off since I have something interesting to talk about. So UAH is usually super quick at publishing monthly numbers. They posted a +0.61 for September 2019 which was an unexpectedly large increase. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt The data file is even flagged with: *****CAUTION****** SEPTEMBER 2019 DATA APPEAR TO BE ERRONEOUSLY WARM. WE ARE INVESTIGATING. The warming seems to be the result of unusually large anomalies in both the stratosphere and troposhere in the southern hemisphere with a whopping +13.65 at the south pole on the TLS product. https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tls/uahncdc_ls_6.0.txt But...RSS just released their September data and they too show the unusual warming. http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLT_Global_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt http://images.remss.com/data/msu/graphics/TLS_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channel_TLS_Southern Polar_Land_And_Sea_v04_0.txt It seems as though there was a sudden stratospheric warming event in the SH. And it was record breaking at least according to UAH and RSS. I'm thinking the UAH (and RSS) data may be legit. UAH may be justified in removing the warning message without any changes to the data.

The September mean was 4.316 which is the 3rd lowest behind 2012 and 2007. Assuming the last 5 years of means and trajectories would approximate the remainder of the 2019 a top 3 finish in the annual mean seems plausible.

Can the authors resubmit with corrections?

Speaking of Joe Bastardi...he is listed on Principia Scientific International's member page. This brings us full circle to another topic that was discussed in this thread; namely the litigation of Mann vs. FCPP/Ball. See, it was John O'Sullivan's article posted on July 4th, 2017 on the PSI's website in which the claim that Mann refused to release his data regarding MBH98 first appeared. John O'Sullivan, it turns out, is the CEO and operator of PSI. He also happens to be an associate of Ball via their authorship of the book Slaying the Sky Dragon and had, at least until Ball ditched him, a mutual agreement that he would act as legal counsel for Ball. Except...that O'Sullivan is neither an expert in climate science nor a lawyer. But, in a strange twist, he did happen to find himself involved in the Mann vs. FCPP/Ball case anyway. I'll let you guys read the relevant court documents here and here and make your own judgement regarding Mr. O'Sullivan and Bastardi's support of him and his site.

It's this study. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3#Sec6 The claim is that the recent warming and future warming of 3C by 2600 can be explained by the distance between the Earth and Sun decreasing due to solar inertial motion (SIM) around the barycenter. Except...the distance between the Earth and Sun doesn't actually change as a result of the SIM as the paper had assumed. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2209895-journal-criticised-for-study-claiming-sun-is-causing-global-warming/

Another way of stating this result is that the climate of the Early Eocene became increasingly sensitive to additional carbon dioxide as the planet warmed. That's seems to be inline with other studies I've read. The sensitivity may start out low...say...0.5C per W/m^2, but as the planet warms it gets more sensitive to the radiative forcing and may rise to 1.0C per W/m^2 and beyond. The equilibrium climate sensitivity in CESM1.2 is near the upper end of that consensus range at 4.2 C (7.7 F). Ya know...in his 1908 book World's in the Making Arrhenius refined his estimate of the 2xCO2 sensitivity at 4C. Wouldn't that be something if Arrhenius' prediction from 100 years ago ended up being nearly spot on?

Assuming it is correct this is the largest one day NSIDC decline within ±7 days of 9/17. -111k...9-17-2019 -99k...9-13-2006 -98k...9-18-1990 -95k...9-22-2003 -91k...9-17-2010

Great link. Thanks. On a global basis in the last 365 days daily highs have outnumbered lows by about 1.8-to-1. On a global basis in the last 365 days all time highs have outnumbered lows by about 4.9-to-1.

After a bit more research I was able to find the court documents. It is important to point out that the Mann vs. Ball case is related to Mann vs Frontier Centre for Public Policy as well. The alleged defamatory statements by Ball occurred via an FCPP interview. The Mann vs. FCPP part of the case was settled just a few months ago. Ball was a codefendant in the same case along with 3rd unnamed party. The case number is VLC-S-S-111913 and is accessible here for a nominal fee. It's possible that the admission by the FCPP that "untrue and disparaging accusations" made toward Mann (and presumably by Ball) may have been a factor in Ball's petitioning the court for dismissal before the court made a judgement based on the merits. Seeing the favorable response Mann had with one defendant it would not be unexpected if Mann were to appeal the dismissal against Ball. Refer to the FCPP's letter below.

932mb near Boston. Edit: That was the 0Z cycle. 12Z cycle isn't out that far yet.

Yeah, and take a look at what the EPS control run does with it past hour 240. Yipes!

The Weaver vs Ball case is similar. This case was dismissed largely because the judge equated Ball's article with similar ludicrous, outrageous, and unbelievable comments which lacked a sufficient air of credibility to be believable in the first place. In other words, it's not defamation if the defendant isn't credible in the eyes of rational thinking persons. https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htm [75] First, as discussed above, the Article is poorly written and does not advance credible arguments in favour of Dr. Ball’s theory about the corruption of climate science. Simply put, a reasonably thoughtful and informed person who reads the Article is unlikely to place any stock in Dr. Ball’s views, including his views of Dr. Weaver as a supporter of conventional climate science. In Vellacott v. Saskatoon Star Phoenix Group Inc. et al, 2012 SKQB 359 [Vellacott], the court found that certain published comments were not defamatory because they were so ludicrous and outrageous as to be unbelievable and therefore incapable of lowering the reputation of the plaintiff in the minds of right-thinking persons (at para. 70). While the impugned words here are not as hyperbolic as the words in Vellacott, they similarly lack a sufficient air of credibility to make them believable and therefore potentially defamatory. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement of Ball which paradoxically favored Ball in the eyes of the court. With the precedent set it makes me wonder if the Mann vs. Ball case would have transpired the same way had Ball not petitioned the court for dismissal on what has been said by Mann's legal team to be related to Ball's health (and not the merits of the case). I was not able to find the official court documents for Mann vs Ball, but here is what Mann posted on social media regarding the matter.

That top chart is misleading indeed. First, it's not peer reviewed. That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, but it is a huge red flag. Second, Dansgaard was among the first ice core researchers. His 1969 work is based on ice core samples from Camp Century in Greenland. So this isn't a global temperature proxy. It is a Greenland temperature proxy using oxygen isotope techniques. And "present" is in reference to 1967 which is the last data point in his dataset. So we're missing the last 50 years of warming which for Greenland is at least 1.0C (and possibly higher) according to Berkeley Earth and various other compilations of Greenland temperatures. So if Bastardi is giving his blessing to this chart then he's going to have to accept that temperatures (at least in Greenland) are higher today than at any point in the last 2000 years. And the recent warming occurred at a rate that is unusual for the holocene and during a period in which temperatures were on a secular decline falling off from the holocene climate optimum circa -6000 BCE. Here is Dansgaard's 1969 dataset. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo-search/study/2429 https://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/greenland/gisp/campcentury/cc-1ynew.txt

That statement isn't just misleading but completely incorrect. There are all sorts of fingerprints that can be used to narrow down which physical process resulted in the warming. Dr. Spencer knows this so I don't why he would make such a statement anyway. So yeah, that was far beyond just being misleading. There were a couple of other statements that leaned more toward the misleading end of the spectrum too though. For example, "I’m not saying that increasing CO2 doesn’t cause warming. I’m saying we have no idea how much warming it causes...". This is a very misleading statement. We might not know exactly how much warming will occur, but our understanding of the process and feedbacks involved gives us far better understanding than just "no idea". And then through inference he conflates uncertainty with faith. Again...very misleading. Uncertainty is not the same thing as faith. Faith is the belief in something without evidence. Uncertainty especially when quantified is itself based on evidence. The message people are getting from statements like these is that anything less than 100% perfect knowledge is the same as having no understanding whatsoever.

And in keeping with the spirit of this thread here is another example of a blog post or statements by an expert which I feel contains misleading information. For those that don't know Dr. Spencer is one of the maintainers of the UAH satellite temperature dataset and is often labeled as a "skeptic". He fully acknowledges that CO2 is a GHG and that humans can and likely are having a significant impact on the climate. I happen to respect him and his contributions to the science, but I do disagree with him on many points namely on his downplay of the magnitude of the anthroprogenic effect, our confidence in this conclusion, and our ability to make decisions from what we've learned so far. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2019/09/the-faith-component-of-global-warming-predictions

Assuming the remaining 4 monthly means are close to the averages of the last 5 years then 2019 might be expected to finish 3rd or 2nd for the annual mean.

Assuming by "model" you mean a global circulation model or numerical weather prediction model then it's relevant to point out that they are just one among many tools, and a relatively recent one at that, for furthering our understanding of AGW and the climate system in general. AGW definitely isn't based on models of this type. In fact, the computers used to run them didn't even exist when AGW was first being developed. If your point was that they aren't perfect then I completely agree. If your point is that they aren't useful then I'll have to respectfully disagree. GCM/NWP models have proven to be a very useful tool in trying to better understand the climate. And the paleoclimate record is consistent with the modern understanding of how the climate system works and is even consistent with attempts at using computerized modeling to explain climate trends in the distant past.

< 1.0C for 2x CO2 is weak indeed. There is little evidence to support a doubling sensitivity this low especially for the modern era. Even Judith Curry's most recent estimate is still within the IPCC range of 1.5 to 4.5C at 1.66C for ECS and 1.33 for TCS. And since 1960 the surface had warmed by 0.9C with less than 50% of the CO2 forcing having occurred. And that's only the TCR as the planet still has a +0.6 W/m^2 or higher imbalance. We are well on our way to an observed > 2.0C sensitivity. Remember, uncertainty is a double edged sword. It's just as likely that we are underestimating the climate sensitivity as we are in overestimating it. In fact, the evidence suggests that the uncertainty on the high side is more than on the low side because of the under-studied (IMHO) tipping point feedbacks and because the low side is continually being constrained at higher values with each passing decade. By the way, I'm curious where the 1.2C figure came from? This is suspiciously close to that which can be computed from the Stefan-Boltzmann law using the canonical ΔF = 5.35 * ln(2) = 3.7 W/m^2 estimate for the radiative forcing and is often referred to as the no-feedback sensitivity.

^ This is the salient point. The consensus theory which includes ALL forcing agents in their appropriate proportions provides a reasonable match to ALL available observations. No other alternative theory especially those that selectively ignore or downplay forcing agents like GHGs even come remotely close to matching the consensus theory in terms of explanatory and predictive power. This is the scientific way...when faced with 2 or more choices you pick the simplest theory that best matches reality. If there is a GHG-less (or GHG-weak) alternative theory then it should be able to explain things like the PETM, other ETMx periods, Chicxulub event, amplitude of the glacial cycles, faint young Sun paradox, modern warming period, and much more at least equally as well and with at least as much evidence to support it. Nevermind that we would still need an explanation for how the consensus theory derived from 150+ years of experimentation, observations, and modern theory development spanning many disciplines of science was all wrong. Given the depth of evidence and the breadth across the many disciplines of science it would require an absolutely revolutionary advancement in the very core of scientific understanding itself to tear it all down. It is possible I suppose; just very unlikely.