The improved Curry Corner

Discussion in 'Science' started by Robert, Mar 9, 2018.

  1. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Dr Curry presents to me a good bit of solid research by experts on climate. I want you to read the links. She presents so much material it would cause me problems should i post all of her work in one post. So this is new. She addresses sources of heat of the earth. She is the expert so please show her comments a good bit of respect.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/09/...ntal-rise-in-temperature-on-earth/#more-23903

    What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?

     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
  2. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More data

    The IPCC AR5 examined the radiative forcing from the period 1750 to 2010 (see Figure 6.3 above posted by Dessler).

    Most of the radiative forcing is from CO2 over this period. However, fossil fuel emissions did not start increasing substantially until after 1950:

    [​IMG]

    The observed warming prior to 1940, the slight decline of temperatures from 1940-1975, and the slowdown in warming from 1998-2014 obviously are not explained by fossil fuel emissions.
     
  3. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    24,716
    Likes Received:
    6,408
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Okay...lets just say fossil fuels have absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change. Now, is Climate Change happening and is our atmosphere warming?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  4. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,400
    Likes Received:
    3,676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The ice core records going back X years are proof positive, if any be needed, an accurate record going back much further than a few paltry hundred years of Earther History.
     
    tecoyah and Robert like this.
  5. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    1,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    JC makes so good points in that blog. I can't really find much to disagree with her here. But, it's important to keep in mind that her point isn't to discredit the AGW hypothesis. It's that she thinks there isn't as much confidence on the anthroprogenic component as most scientists claim. That's a reasonable position. Here are a few JC quotes taken straight from her blog.

    "I agree that it is extremely likely that fossil fuel emissions have contributed to the warming observed since 1951."

    but...

    "I am not at all convinced by arguments that the human induced contribution is similar to the observed warming (essentially 100%) since 1951."

    Basically she's acknowledging that humans have a measurable impact, but she does not agree that all of the warming can be 100% attributed to humans. In fact, she thinks there is only a 50% chance that humans are responsible for 50% of the warming. There's nothing wrong with that position. However, to be really convincing she needs to then explain the other 50% of the warming. At this point it seems like she chalks that up to natural variability. I'm okay with some unexplained variability, but if it happens over decades in tandem with declining solar activity then we really to start explaining it detail instead of using smoke and mirror terms like "variability".
     
    Robert likes this.
  6. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    1,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, both the atmosphere and oceans are warming now. The question is what is the anthroprogenic contribution to the observed warming. The studies I've seen range from 50-100% with most being closer to the 100%. But, anthroprogenic effects aren't all positive effect (warming). Aerosols have a negative effect (cooling) and it's actually pretty significant. It's the net we're talking about right here though. However, if you itemize all of the anthroprogenic and natural components and compare them on an absolute value basis (remove the negative sign) so that we can quantify the forcing impact (whether positive or negative) we see that anthroprogenic components are far more potent than natural components in modulating the climate at least right now. It's just that negative anthroprogenic components (like aerosols) cancel out ~50% of the positive anthroprogenic components (like greenhouse gases). What I'm saying is that if we could magically cease on greenhouse gas emissions the Earth would (eventually) start cooling...anthroprogenically.

    JC's position is that the anthroprogenic component to the warming (and only the warming) is closer to the 50% figure.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2018
    Robert likes this.
  7. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Lets separate into two vital issues.
    Issue one is harmful
    Issue two is not harmful

    Climate has constantly changed from the moment clouds formed. Prior to clouds, climate would be more stable and consistent globally. Study of clouds is next to impossible. For one thing Clouds are constantly forming and changing, adding to them and subtracting from them. Currents move them.

    Are clouds harmful. During serious violent storms, they certainly are. Are clouds on a lazy summer day those in a hurricane? Definitely not.

    The intense debate to my mind then is harm.

    Climate can harm man. Climate can benefit man. Climate say in Death Valley can take mans life. Climate say in the nearby San Joaquin Valley gives life.

    I maintain climate changes and so far as I am able to observe not to the extent harm comes to humans.
     
  8. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you use the supplied link, you will then have access to many papers and commentaries.
     
  9. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    More data

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    About Aerosols

    So limited by rules as to what can be posted so please, use the link. If you truly like to see what researchers report and not your politicians, check this out.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/11/...rosol-forcing-of-the-cmip5-models/#more-23918

    Data

    I used the IPCC AR 5 forcing data, revised (Myhre 2017 , Etminan (2016), updated, and the GMST from Cowtan & Way both for the time span 1950…2015 (not 2016 due to very strong ENSO influence). I excluded the volcano forcing and the years with ERFvolcano >1W/m² to avoid some bias due to the timing of these events and the known lower impact of volcanism on the GMST than other forcings.

    Estimation of ERFaero in the CMIP5 mean vs. Sato et al.

    All calculations (i.e. here or here ) using the regression method- observed GMST vs. the total forcings- come to TCR estimates which are well below the mean of the CMIP5 models of 1.8 K/doubling CO2. Despite this, the CMIP5 mean historical warming reasonably matches the observed warming. The explanation for this should be the use of different ERFaero values because all other forcing data are much better constrained than ERFaero.
     
  11. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you notice, the major factor being ignored by the politicians is clouds. Sure, you will see in some drawings a bit about clouds, but the factor discussed is carbon dioxide when it is clouds that are the more important.

    Notice the present thinking is if you blame man, then man decides climate. I do not believe man can control climate.
     
  12. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Who looked at this report?

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/02/26/nature-unbound-viii-modern-global-warming/#comment-868535

    Nature Unbound VIII – Modern global warming
    Posted on February 26, 2018 | 794 Comments
    by Javier

    Summary: Modern Global Warming has been taking place for the past 300 years. It is the last of several multi-century warming periods that have happened during the Neoglacial cooling of the past 3000 years. Analysis of Holocene climate cycles shows that the period 1600-2100 AD should be a period of warming. The evidence suggests that Modern Global Warming is within Holocene variability, but the cryosphere displays a non-cyclical retreat that appears to have undone thousands of years of Neoglacial ice advance. The last 70 out of 300 years of Modern Global Warming are characterized by human-caused, extremely unusual, rapidly increasing CO2 levels. In stark contrast with this rapidly accelerating anthropogenic forcing, global temperature and sea level appear to have continued their rising trend with no perceptible evidence of added acceleration. The evidence supports a higher sensitivity to CO2 in the cryosphere, suggesting a negative feedback by H2O, that prevents CO2 from having the same effect elsewhere.
     
  13. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Check this report.

    https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/19/emergent-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity-part-i/#more-23951

     
    iamanonman likes this.
  14. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Let's examine sea level rise, shall we?
    https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/21/...ot-part-v-detection-attribution-2/#more-23956

    Sea level rise acceleration (or not). Part V: detection & attribution

    by Judith Curry

    In looking for causes, I have applied the ‘Sherlock Holmes procedure’ of eliminating one suspect after another. The procedure has left us without any good suspect. Thermal expansion was the candidate of choice at the time of the first IPCC review. The computed steric rise is too little, too late, and too linear. – Walter Munk

     
  15. iamanonman

    iamanonman Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2016
    Messages:
    3,979
    Likes Received:
    1,268
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That was a good read. It is interesting to note that JC believes the anthroprogenic contribution to the sea level rise since 1900 is 37-69%. Again, that's since 1900 which includes about 50 years in which most of the rise was likely natural. I wonder what her position would be if asked what the anthroprogenic contribution is after 1950 which is the approximate time at which anthroprogenic forcing really started to ramp up. She clearly states she doesn't buy the near 100% attribution overwhelming supported by her peers. Which is fine. But, what does she think it is? Less than 100% but greater than 69%?
     
  16. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I think I can find out.
     
  17. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Can I suggest you try to inquire from Curry's site? I signed up but so far am exploring how to get a comment to show up there.
     
    iamanonman likes this.
  18. Robert

    Robert Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2014
    Messages:
    40,385
    Likes Received:
    7,838
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My major concern is the level of knowledge of clouds. Few discuss clouds yet they remain the most unpredictable factor of all of this. What impact on clouds would carbon dioxide have? Would more form or fewer? Where would the clouds be located? How about the depth of clouds. There are a number of cloud formations. Do all have the same impact? This is why I see this as a virtually unsolvable problem and a risk to our lives of turning them upside down due to some fears.

    We already see globally how autos are growing tiny. Soon the tiny car will be normal. Tiny cars have next to no safety protection features.
     
  19. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    16,311
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    You don't say.
     
    Robert likes this.
  20. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,400
    Likes Received:
    3,676
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You don't say.

    You don't say.

    You don't say.

    What did he say ?

    He didn't say......
     
    Last edited: Mar 23, 2018

Share This Page