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?
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: 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.
Okay...lets just say fossil fuels have absolutely NOTHING to do with climate change. Now, is Climate Change happening and is our atmosphere warming?
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Check this report. https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/19/emergent-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity-part-i/#more-23951
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
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%?
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.
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.
More reports https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/23/emergent-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity-part-ii/#more-23971 Emergent constraints on climate sensitivity: Part II Posted on March 23, 2018 | 5 Comments by Nic Lewis The four constraints that Caldwell assessed as credible. In Part 1 the nature and validity of emergent constraints[1] on equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) in GCMs were discussed, drawing mainly on the analysis and assessment of 19 such constraints in Caldwell et al (2018; henceforth Caldwell),[2] who concluded that only four of them were credible. All those four constraints favoured ECS in the upper half of the CMIP5 range (3.4–4.7°C). An extract of the rows of Table 1 of Part 1 detailing those four emergent constraints is given below.[3] Caldwell regarded a proposed emergent constraint as not credible if it lacks an identifiable physical mechanism; is not robust to change of model ensemble; or if its correlation with ECS is not due to its proposed physical mechanism. The credible constraints identified in Caldwell are all related to tropical/subtropical low clouds and all except Brient Shal are significantly correlated with each other.
NASA and NOAA show error bars for cloud contribution that are not small, as a result of how much is known about these features. I would suggest that you: - stop betting that scientists are clueless about cloud thickness not being a constant. If you think they DO think clouds come in one thickness, then CITE that. - recognize that these scientists (and the VAST majority of climate related scientists) show that other human factors are significant enough to outweigh these cloud related error bars. And, your ideas about turning lives upside down has NOTHING to do with science. That is purely YOU making gigantic assumptions about what would be a rational response to the science as it exists. Using such fear mongering as a justification for ignoring climate change is not an acceptable approach.
More data on science on Climate change Though I get when she emailed me her reports, they are also available online. Be advised the arguments are far too long to post all here. With no restrictions at all by the forum, said articles are too technical to post the entire article here. So I urge you to use the link and study all of the report. Note many are not by Judith Curry but she has the rights to her own site. https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/29/...itivity-in-global-models-part-iii/#more-23985
notice to entire forum. I have refrained from posting such as the above since it is not my intent to launch attacks at various posters over posting science. If they refute me, use scientific systems and do not jump my case over the science I am posting here.
I bring up clouds since globally they vary so much. Yet of all the influences that are known, clouds are the most vital.
