Curry drops this in. Notice it is by Nic Lewis though it is in the Curry Corner. So any argument is with him and he is an expert. Remarkable changes to carbon emission budgets in the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C Posted on October 18, 2018 by niclewis | 121 Comments by Nic Lewis A close reading of Chapters 1 and 2 of the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C (SR15) reveals some interesting changes from the IPCC 5th Assessment Report (AR5), and other science-relevant statements. This article highlights statements in SR15 relating to carbon emission budgets for meeting the 1.5°C and 2°C targets. It seems fairly extraordinary to me that the AR5 post-2010 carbon budget for 1.5°C, which was only published four years ago, has in effect been now been increased by ~700 GtCO2 – equal to 21st century emissions to date – despite SR15’s projections of future warming being based very largely on the transient climate response to cumulative emissions (TCRE) range exhibited by the models used in AR5. Key points The SR15 estimates of the carbon budgets that will allow us to remain within the 1.5°C and 2°C targets are far larger than those given in AR5 – over five times as high from end 2017 for a 66% probability of not exceeding 1.5°C warming. SR15 switches the measure of past (up to 2010) warming for the 1.5°C and 2°C targets from near-surface air temperatures (SAT) everywhere (as in AR5) to a blend of near-surface air temperatures over land and sea-surface water temperatures (SST). SR15 bases its estimates of the relationship of future warming to future CO2 emissions very largely on the behaviour of the current generation of Earth system models (ESMs), as used for AR5. However, unlike AR5 it does not do so directly. Instead, it assumes a fixed probabilistic relationship between post-2010 cumulative CO2 emissions and the warming they cause, and derives (using simplified climate models) an allowance for warming from other causes. [*]SR15 ignores ESM simulation estimates of warming to date, instead estimating it using observational data. [*]The resulting SR15 estimate of the post-1875 cumulative CO2 emissions that would give a 50% probability of meeting the 1.5°C target is approximately 720 GtCO2 larger than per AR5, partially offset by a 210 GtCO2 increase in estimated 1876–2010 emissions, giving a net increase of 510 GtCO2 for the post-2010 carbon budget. [*]Approximately 180 GtCO2 of the ~720 GtCO2 increase in the post-1875 budget is due to lower projected post-2010 warming relative to post-2010 cumulative CO2 The lower projected warming appears to be because of two factors: The TCRE value used in SR15 matches the average of the full set of ESMs in AR5; however the budgets calculated for AR5 were based on a subset of ESMs that had a higher average TCRE value. Lower non-CO2 warming is projected in SR15 than in AR5 and possibly also to other, unidentified, factors. The remaining 540 GtCO2 of the increase relates to changing the measure of warming up to 2010 from a model-simulation basis to an observational basis and may be allocated approximately as follows: half (270 GtCO2) to the models used for the AR5 budgets warming more by 2010 than do the full set of AR5 CMIP5 models, and half (270 GtCO2) to changing the measure of past warming from the globally-complete near-surface air temperature to a blend of SAT over land and SST over ocean, as measured (on a globally-incomplete basis) by the average of four observational temperature records. SR15’s definition of warming for carbon budget purposes In order to understand the changes in the SR15 carbon budgets from those given in AR5, it is necessary to examine the way that SR15 defines warming. The key part of SR15 here is Section 1.2.1: ‘Working definitions of 1.5°C and 2°C warming relative to pre-industrial levels’. The SR15 report ‘adopts a working definition of “1.5°C relative to pre-industrial levels” that corresponds to global average combined land surface air and sea surface temperatures either 1.5°C warmer than the average of the 51-year period 1850–1900, 0.87°C warmer than the 20-year period 1986–2005, or 0.63°C warmer than the decade 2006–2015’. It states that these offsets are based on all available published global datasets, combined and updated. SR15’s working definition of warming over the historical period is based on an average of the four available global datasets that are supported by peer-reviewed publications: the three datasets used in AR5 – HadCRUT4, NOAA, GISTEMP, as updated – together with the Cowtan and Way infilled version of HadCRUT4.[ii]Berkeley Earth (BEST) and JMA are not used because ‘no peer-reviewed publication is available for these global combined land–sea datasets’. SR15 explains that ‘The IPCC has traditionally defined changes in observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) as a weighted average of near-surface air temperature (SAT) changes over land and sea surface temperature (SST) changes over the oceans’. Consistent with that, the SR15 1.5°C remaining carbon budgets are based on anthropogenic warming up to 2006–2015 of 0.87°C, which is based on surface temperature datasets that mostly combine near-surface air temperature over land and sea surface temperature over the (open) ocean. Average global warming simulated over the historical period (1850 to date) by the ESMs used in AR5 exceeds that shown by the observational temperature records used in SR15.[iii] It is likely that part of that difference in warming is due to the ESMs using SAT as the measure of temperature over the ocean as well as land, and to incomplete global coverage of observations. The importance of this issue is reflected by SR15’s statement that ‘the use of blended SAT/SST data and incomplete coverage together can give approximately 0.2°C less warming from the 19th century to the present relative to the use of complete global-average SAT.’ However, it is doubtful that SR15’s warming measure is that far below the old one, or even by as far as the calculated 13% warming shortfall in CMIP5 models reported in SR15.[iv] Although two of the four temperature datasets used in SR15 use SST measurements for the oceans, the other two use a hybrid of SST and SAT, so the average of the four would not be expected to differ from a pure SAT dataset by as much as SR15 calculates.[v] Moreover, warming estimates for recent decades in two versions of the globally-complete ERA-interim reanalysis – one based on SAT everywhere, and one based on SAT over land but SST over ocean – differ only very marginally.[vi] In addition, one of the four datasets fully infills areas with missing data, while two others infill substantially. SR15 shows (Table 1.1) that over the long term, lack of complete infilling makes little difference: the fully infilled Cowtan and Way dataset was only 0.02°C higher over the length of the record than per the SR15 average.[vii] Moreover, over recent decades warming in the Cowtan and Way dataset matched or exceeded that in the two globally-complete reanalysis datasets featured in SR15, despite the latter using SAT everywhere while Cowtan and Way use SST over the oceans.[viii]
Have you looked to see if this question has been answered? Do you think this is the only question being asked? Are you proposing that if someone asks a question, then it means the entire field of research should be ignored?
I hoped an expert or an actual wannabe expert on this forum would answer that. But guess we have no actual experts.
First let the experts tackle this. If you do not agree, spell out the minute of the disagreement and give a short or long, reason for the disagreement. That would work wonders.
Key points The SR15 estimates of the carbon budgets that will allow us to remain within the 1.5°C and 2°C targets are far larger than those given in AR5 – over five times as high from end 2017 for a 66% probability of not exceeding 1.5°C warming. SR15 switches the measure of past (up to 2010) warming for the 1.5°C and 2°C targets from near-surface air temperatures (SAT) everywhere (as in AR5) to a blend of near-surface air temperatures over land and sea-surface water temperatures (SST). SR15 bases its estimates of the relationship of future warming to future CO2 emissions very largely on the behaviour of the current generation of Earth system models (ESMs), as used for AR5. However, unlike AR5 it does not do so directly. Instead, it assumes a fixed probabilistic relationship between post-2010 cumulative CO2 emissions and the warming they cause, and derives (using simplified climate models) an allowance for warming from other causes. [*]SR15 ignores ESM simulation estimates of warming to date, instead estimating it using observational data. [*]The resulting SR15 estimate of the post-1875 cumulative CO2 emissions that would give a 50% probability of meeting the 1.5°C target is approximately 720 GtCO2 larger than per AR5, partially offset by a 210 GtCO2 increase in estimated 1876–2010 emissions, giving a net increase of 510 GtCO2 for the post-2010 carbon budget. [*]Approximately 180 GtCO2 of the ~720 GtCO2 increase in the post-1875 budget is due to lower projected post-2010 warming relative to post-2010 cumulative CO2 The lower projected warming appears to be because of two factors: The TCRE value used in SR15 matches the average of the full set of ESMs in AR5; however the budgets calculated for AR5 were based on a subset of ESMs that had a higher average TCRE value. Lower non-CO2 warming is projected in SR15 than in AR5 and possibly also to other, unidentified, factors. The remaining 540 GtCO2 of the increase relates to changing the measure of warming up to 2010 from a model-simulation basis to an observational basis and may be allocated approximately as follows: half (270 GtCO2) to the models used for the AR5 budgets warming more by 2010 than do the full set of AR5 CMIP5 models, and half (270 GtCO2) to changing the measure of past warming from the globally-complete near-surface air temperature to a blend of SAT over land and SST over ocean, as measured (on a globally-incomplete basis) by the average of four observational temperature records.
So, the question you have not answered is what scientists from the worldd over who spend their entire professional lives studying climate say about your complaint. You spend your life searching for those few who you think confirm your preconceived notions. That is possible to do throughout all of science. You can find those who argue for flat earth, Noah's flood, young earth, no evolution, etc. Finding outliers is always going to be possible. Finding indiviual datapoints that, when taken out of context and/or support, seem inexplicable to a nonscientist is also common. But, it isn't meaningful, especially when you spend zero time finding out why mainstream science doesn't agree with these outliers.
Oh god no, I am not some flat earther. But thank you for the insult anyway. My preconceived notion in 1980 was I do not know. I am willing to learn. I love learning from true scientists. Sadly I keep encountering not scientists, but politicians. Why would I put my fate in the hands of politicians? When I began studying climate, how many scientists were preaching to me that i am in charge of climate? Guess? Frankly I recall none. But guess who placed me in charge of climate? It was politicians. Funny the scientists never blame me for climate. But politicians still do. To be fair, I ask every "expert" posting if the person really is an expert. Guess what they tell me?
I did NOT suggest you are a flat earther. I said you can FIND such people. The point is that when we're getting ready to acccept an outlier position we need to know why it is that the vast majority of experts in the field do not agree. So for example, if someone thinks the earth is flat, one should ask why experts don't agree. Those you find may or may not be experts in climatology, but the real issue is whether they diesagree with the mainstream and why. Of course, if they aren't even experts in climatology or if they have seriously tainted records then one doesn't really have to go that far. You quoted Soon. But, regardless of his credentials he's had real problems in the past. Nobody can consider his views as justifying ignoring the vast majority of serious climatologists the world over.
How is it looking at the South Pole region? i suppose you accept NASA????? https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-new-record-maximum On Sept. 19, 2014, the five-day average of Antarctic sea ice extent exceeded 20 million square kilometers for the first time since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The red line shows the average maximum extent from 1979-2014. Credits: NASA's Scientific Visualization Studio/Cindy Starr Sea ice surrounding Antarctica reached a new record high extent this year, covering more of the southern oceans than it has since scientists began a long-term satellite record to map sea ice extent in the late 1970s. The upward trend in the Antarctic, however, is only about a third of the magnitude of the rapid loss of sea ice in the Arctic Ocean. The new Antarctic sea ice record reflects the diversity and complexity of Earth’s environments, said NASA researchers. Claire Parkinson, a senior scientist at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, has referred to changes in sea ice coverage as a microcosm of global climate change. Just as the temperatures in some regions of the planet are colder than average, even in our warming world, Antarctic sea ice has been increasing and bucking the overall trend of ice loss.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2018/02/ross-ice-shelf-bore-antarctica-freezing/ Deep Bore Into Antarctica Finds Freezing Ice, Not Melting as Expected Scientists will leave sensors in the hole to better understand the long-term changes in the ice, which may have big implications for global sea level. PUBLISHED FEBRUARY 16, 2018 SCIENTISTS HAVE PEERED into one of the least-explored swaths of ocean on Earth, a vast region located off the coast of West Antarctica. It is locked beneath a crust of ice larger than Spain and more than 1,000 feet thick, making its waters perpetually dark—and extremely difficult for humans to access. Now, a team of researchers has bored a hole through the ice and sampled the ocean beneath it. Their work could shed light on a poorly understood, but ominous episode in Antarctica’s recent past. A team of scientists from New Zealand began this two-month expedition in November. A ski-mounted Twin Otter aircraft ferried them 220 miles from the nearest base, landing near the middle of the Ross Ice Shelf—the massive slab of ice and snow, as flat and empty as a prairie, that hangs off the coastline of West Antarctica and floats on the ocean. Amid the glow of 24-hour summer sunlight filtering down through fog, they assembled an automobile-sized contraption of pipes, hoses, and boilers. (See more of the world below Antarctic ice.) This machine generated a powerful jet of hot water, which they used to melt two narrow holes, each a few inches across, more than 1,100 feet down to the bottom of the ice. They then lowered cameras and other instruments through the holes, into the waters below. In doing so, they hoped to answer a question of worldwide importance: just how secure is the ice of West Antarctica? The West Antarctic Ice Sheet is up to 10,000 feet thick in some places. It sits in a broad, low bowl that dips thousands of feet below sea level—making it vulnerable to deep, warm ocean currents that are already nipping at its outer edges. It is stabilized, at least for the time being, by a phalanx of floating ice shelves, that hang off its outer edges—of which the Ross Ice Shelf is by far the largest. Those floating shelves provide a buttress; they “are holding back a very big amount of ice,” says Craig Stevens, an oceanographer from the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research in New Zealand, who participated in the expedition. Surprising Finds The surprises began almost as soon as a camera was lowered into the first borehole, around December 1. The undersides of ice shelves are usually smooth due to gradual melting. But as the camera passed through the bottom of the hole, it showed the underside of the ice adorned with a glittering layer of flat ice crystals—like a jumble of snowflakes—evidence that in this particular place, sea water is actually freezing onto the base of the ice instead of melting it. “It blew our minds,” says Christina Hulbe, a glaciologist from the University of Otago in New Zealand, who co-led the expedition. The Ross Ice Shelf is considered more stable, at present, than many of West Antarctica’s other floating shelves—and this observation could help explain that: if a few inches of sea water periodically freezes onto the bottom of its ice, this could buffer it from thinning more rapidly.
Yes I do. Antarctic sea ice extents whipsawed from a record high in 2014 to record lows today. In fact, at this very moment sea ice extents are the 2nd lowest on record in this region. This is actually one of those not so great predictions by the IPCC. AR3 predicted that sea ice extents and ice volume in general would increase in Antarctica. And while they generally have over decades in recent years sea ice extents are at or near record lows.
Here is something of interest at Antartica. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/icesat-2-reveals-profile-of-ice-sheets-sea-ice-forests
More science for the true adventurers. There is a feast to delight even the strongest alarmists. https://judithcurry.com/2018/12/28/week-in-review-science-edition-92/#more-24572 2018 The First Year With No Violent Tornadoes In U.S. – “We’re now days away from this becoming the first year in the modern record with no violent tornadoes touching down in the United States.” [link] Increasingly powerful tornadoes in the U.S. [link] Washington Times article on my new report Sea Level and Climate Change [link] An argument for greater inclusion of machine learning in subseasonal to seasonal forecasts. [link] Domino effect of tipping points [link] Wind farms could cause surface warming [link] How air pollution has put a break on global warming [link] Pliocene and Eocene provide best analogs for near-future climate [link] Rapid Drying of Northeast India in the Last Three Decades: Climate Change or Natural Variability? [link]
Frankly here in CA we have been having cold weather. I believe colder than last year. And look what has been happening in the rest of the USA and no doubt Canada. They have some serious snows over large swaths of the USA. To the point it leads the news as a major story.
This is of interest for climate alarmists. https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/21/is-ocean-warming-accelerating-faster-than-thought/
And, in Australia they're having trouble with their roads melting. It's not all about you and your patio.
Your alarmists typically completely blame man and figure natural causes are at the most a sliver of the problem. If any problem at all. Another problem with Alarmists is they have no practical solutions.
I'm not an alarmist. I'm a realist. And the wealth of the world's experts say the situation is critical. Any rational person will follow the consensus of the experts. It is the best that we have. One cranky old retired professor doesn't change my mind. Maybe her frustration is that she's wrong. That's what happens when you're on the wrong side of a consensus. We can eliminate the need for fossil fuels in five years by using fuels produced from algae', along with other cutting edge technologies, such as solar. At this point algae fuels would only cost a few bucks a gallon more than petro fuels. But that is the real problem. We have the technical solutions. The problem is the price at the pump. At about the $5 per gallon mark, best case, algae fuels will be competitive soon but they're not quite yet. And no one wants to pay $6 a gallon when they could get it for $3. But fifteen years ago, algae fuels were more like $20-$30 a gallon. So it is all but there,
I don't know what you mean by "alarmist". That looks like an opinion, possibly with political ties. Climatology has shown for years that natural causes are a minor part of the issue - totally overwhelmed by atmospheric issues caused by human activity. Whether there exist easy solutions is a completely different issue.
This reminds me that the global consensus is that there is GOD who created the universe and perhaps is busy creating more of them. I have since had a chance to check into algae fuels and sadly that too has major problems.
