by Willis Eschenbach, November 17, 2018 in WUWT
Let me start explaining the link from Picasso to climate science by looking at what Dr. Nir Shaviv called “the most boring graph I have ever plotted in my life”.
This is the graph of the changes in the best estimate of the range of what is called “climate sensitivity” over the last forty years or so.
What is climate sensitivity when it’s at home? To explain that, I’ll have to take a slight detour. First, downwelling radiation.
“Downwelling” in climate science means headed down towards the planetary surface. Downwelling radiation is the total radiation going downwards towards the surface. It is composed of sunshine (shortwave) plus thermal radiation from the atmosphere (longwave). In climate science, this quantity, total downwelling radiation, is called “forcing”, abbreviated “F”
The central paradigm of modern climate science is that if you change the amount of downwelling radiation (forcing), that the surface temperature perforce will change. The claim is that everything else averages out, and if the forcing increases, then surface temperature needs to change to maintain the global energy balance. It has to change. It must.
In short, the central paradigm of modern climate science is the following:
In the long run, global temperature change is proportional to global forcing change.
The putatively constant proportion between the two, which is the temperature change divided by forcing change, is called the “climate sensitivity”.
See also here
by Les Blogs, 17 novembre 2018
D’abord cette info surprenante. Une étude récente sur le réchauffement des océans a dû être modifiée après publication dans Nature. L’étude, très alarmiste, avait pourtant été révisée puis validée par un comité de lecture et publiée dans la plus prestigieuse revue scientifique au monde. Or la méthodologie et les conclusions de cette recherche étaient erronées.
La faille a été découverte par Nic Lewis, un chercheur climato-critique très populaire en Grande-Bretagne. Il affirme, et les faits lui donnent raison: « Je suis légèrement surpris que ni les pairs examinateurs ni le rédacteur en chef n’aient repéré ce qui me semblait être une alarme rouge à la page 1. »
by Bob Tisdale, November 15, 2018 in WUWT
As you’ll soon see, there was an eye-catching uptick (+0.25 deg C) in the GISS global Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) data from September to October 2018. We’ll have to wait for next month’s update to see if it also appears in the NOAA and Met Office datasets.
There are numerous things to note in the trend comparison. First, there is a growing divergence between models and data starting in the early 2000s. The continued rise in the model trends indicates global surface warming is supposed to be accelerating, but the data indicate little to no acceleration since then. Second, the plateau in the data warming rates begins in the early 1990s, indicating that there has been very little acceleration of global warming for more than 2 decades. This suggests that there MAY BE a maximum rate at which surface temperatures can warm. Third, note that the observed 30-year trend ending in the mid-1940s is comparable to the recent 30-year trends. (That, of course, is a function of the new NOAA ERSST.v5 data used by GISS.) Fourth, yet that high 30-year warming ending about 1945 occurred without being caused by the forcings that drive the climate models. That is, the climate models indicate that global surface temperatures should have warmed at about a third that fast if global surface temperatures were dictated by the forcings used to drive the models. In other words, if the models can’t explain the observed 30-year warming ending around 1945, then the warming must have occurred naturally. And that, in turns, generates the question: how much of the current warming occurred naturally? Fifth, the agreement between model and data trends for the 30-year periods ending in the 1960s to about 2000 suggests the models were tuned to that period or at least part of it. Sixth, going back further in time, the models can’t explain the cooling seen during the 30-year periods before the 1920s, which is why they fail to properly simulate the warming in the early 20thCentury.
One last note, the monumental difference in modeled and observed warming rates at about 1945 confirms my earlier statement that the models can’t simulate the warming that occurred during the early warming period of the 20th Century.
by Kenneth Richard, November 15, 2018 in NoTricksZone
The year 2018 could mark the beginning of the end of climate change alarmist reporting. Projections of catastrophic melting of the ice sheets and sea level rise swallowing up the Earth’s coasts are increasingly undermined by observation.
Despite the hackneyed practice of reporting “staggering” ice sheet melt for both Greenland and Antarctica in recent decades, the two polar ice sheets combined to add just 1.5 centimeters to sea level rise between 1958 and 2014 (graphfrom Frederikse et al., 2018) as global sea levels only rose by “1.5 ± 0.2 mm yr−1 over 1958–2014 (1σ)” or “1.3 ± 0.1 mm yr−1 for the sum of contributors”.
That’s about 7.8 centimeters (3.1 inches) of global sea level change in 56 years.
by M. Bastasch, November 14, 2018 in WUWT/DailyCaller
Scientists behind a headline-grabbing climate study admitted they “really muffed” their paper.
Their study claimed to find 60 percent more warming in the oceans, but that was based on math errors.
The errors were initially spotted by scientist Nic Lewis, who called them “serious (but surely inadvertent) errors.”
The scientists behind a headline-grabbing global warming study did something that seems all too rare these days — they admitted to making mistakes and thanked the researcher, a global warming skeptic, who pointed them out.
“When we were confronted with his insight it became immediately clear there was an issue there,” study co-author Ralph Keeling told The San Diego Union-Tribune on Tuesday.
Their study, published in October, used a new method of measuring ocean heat uptake and found the oceans had absorbed 60 more heat than previously thought. Many news outlets relayed the findings, but independent scientist Nic Lewis quickly found problems with the study.
Keeling, a scientist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, owned up to the mistake and thanked Lewis for finding it. Keeling and his co-authors submitted a correction to the journal Nature. (RELATED: Headline-Grabbing Global Warming Study Suffers From A Major Math Error)…
by Andy May, November 13, 2018 in WUWT
Popular accounts of shale oil and gas reservoirs are often riddled with errors and, even when technically correct, often misleading. As a shale petrophysicist, retired from Devon Energy, I thought I would try and explain, in a non-technical way, how these reservoirs work and why they have been so successful.
Figure 1. Major shale oil and gas plays in the United States. Source EIA.
by David Middleton, November 13, 2018 in WUWT
This story was previously discussed here at WUWT… But, why wasn’t this headline news in the Washington Post, New York Times, etc.? Yes… That was a rhetorical question.
Comparisons with nearby automated weather stations suggest that air temperatures during these events are near −94 ± 4 °C or about −138 F. Ultracold conditions (below −90 °C) occur more frequently when the Antarctic polar vortex is strong. This temperature appears to be about as low as it is possible to reach, even under clear skies and very dry conditions, because heat radiating from the cold clear air is nearly equal to the heat radiating from the bitterly cold snow surface.
by Willis Eschenbach, November 12, 2018 in WUWT
Our charmingly incompetent California Governor, Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown, has announced that all climate-change deniers are “definitely contributing” to the wildfires in the northern and southern parts of the state over the past few days, as well as blazes “in the coming years.” So look out, you dang “deniers”, it’s all your fault!
So … did scientists actually “predict” that past temperatures have gone up by one degree? Can scientists actually predict the past? And can we really expect half a degree of warming in the next decade? To get some perspective on these questions, I thought I’d take a look at the records. I found an interesting site, the Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC), which has a variety of weather-related data state by state. So with no further ado, here is the average temperature in California from January of 1895 to the present, October 2018.
by Henri Masson, 10 mars 2012, in Contrepoints
Des modèles, cela fait 40 ans que j’en fais », précise d’emblée Henri Masson. Ingénieur chimiste de formation (Université Libre de Bruxelles), docteur en sciences appliquées, professeur émérite à l’Université d’Anvers, expert globe-trotter (notamment pour la Banque Mondiale et l’ONU), l’homme est, de surcroît, doté d’un sérieux sens de la vulgarisation. Lorsque Contrepoints lui propose d’analyser les modèles prédictifs du GIEC, le Belge est catégorique : « Si mes étudiants me présentaient de tels modèles, je n’hésiterais pas à les recaler ! »
Contrepoints : Quelle confiance peut-on accorder aux modèles du GIEC, qui prévoient, parmi d’autres choses, un réchauffement planétaire dû aux émissions humaines de CO2 ?
by M. Hertzberg & H. Scheruder, 2016 in EnergyEnvironment
The authors evaluate the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensus that the increase of carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere is of anthropogenic origin and is causing dangerous global warming, climate change and climate disruption. The totality of the data available on which that theory is based is evaluated. The data include: (a) Vostok ice-core measurements; (b) accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere; (c) studies of temperature changes that precede CO2 changes; (d) global temperature trends; (e) current ratio of carbon isotopes in the atmosphere; (f) satellite data for the geographic distribution of atmospheric CO2; (g) effect of solar activity on cosmic rays and cloud cover. Nothing in the data supports the supposition that atmospheric CO2 is a driver of weather or climate, or that human emissions control atmos- pheric CO2.
by Bob Tisdale, November 5, 2018 in WUWT
Alternate Title: The Annual Cycle in Global Land+Ocean Surface Temperature IS Far Greater Than 1.5 Deg C, AND Much-Much-MUCH Greater Than 1.5 Deg C Annually for Global Land Air Surface Temperatures
We all were taught early in school that the Earth orbits the Sun…that its path is elliptical…that because of the tilt in Earth’s axis of rotation, we have seasons as the Earth orbits our star annually. Because of the elliptical orbit, and because the ratios of land to ocean are different between the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, we might expect that global average surface temperatures would vary over the course of a year.
Later in life we’ve been brow beaten with alarmism about human-induced global warming and climate change…that the Earth will become a literal—not figurative—hell if global surface temperatures rise—formerly 2-deg C—now 1.5 deg C above pre-industrial levels. But does the average person know much global surface temperatures vary annually as it orbits the Sun? It’s unlikely, because I’ve never before seen graphs that are similar to what’s presented in this post or seen it discussed in any of the global warming literature. Am I expecting most persons to find this information to be of any interest? Nope. I simply find it noteworthy that, as I mentioned before, I’ve never seen it presented anywhere. In fact, I just Googled, in quotes, “How Much Do Global Surface Temperatures Cycle Annually?” and Google replied (their boldface), “No results found for “How Much Do Global Surface Temperatures Cycle Annually?”.
Remarkable, is it not, in these times of global warming interest?
Enough with the preamble and on to the meat of the post:
by Albert Parker, November 2, 2018 in WUWT
A recent paper Trajectories of the Earth System in the Anthropocene (Ref.  below) claims that even if the CO2 emission reductions called for in the Paris Agreement are met, our Earth may still enter what they call “Hothouse Earth” conditions, a long-term stabilization at temperature 4-5 °C-higher than pre-industrial temperatures, and sea-level 10-60 m-higher than today. They conclude calling for an accelerated transition towards a CO2 emission-free-world-economy. There is, however, very little evidence that the apocalyptic prediction is scientific grounded. Where really measured, the temperatures haven’t increased dramatically, and similarly, the sea-levels haven’t risen dramatically. More importantly, any acceleration of the temperature warming, or any acceleration of the rate of rise of the sea-level, are hard to detect.
Figure 1 –sample long-term-trend thermometer results (Alice Spring, NT, Australia). The temperatures were recorded in the Post Office / City and Airport locations. Data downloaded from www.bom.gov.au/climate/data/.
by Anthony Watts, October 31, 2018 in WUWT
Friends of Science Society is critical of the IPCC SR15 report, pointing out the following:
We are in the Meghalayan, not the Anthropocene. The IPCC SR15 report claims to view climate change through “the lens of the Anthropocene.” This term is popularly used to describe a modern geological period wherein humans are assumed to have a larger impact on the world than nature. On July 13, 2018, the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) issued a statement that the earth is now in the Meghalayan, a period that began 4,200 years ago. In response to questions as to why the term “Anthropocene” had not been included, at least for the past 50 years of presumed human influence, the IUGS responded that the term “Anthropocene” has not even been submitted for consideration and that the term has only sociological, not scientific relevance. The IPCC should not use this ‘lens.’
All climate models (simulations) used by the IPCC run ‘too hot’ versus observations. The computer simulations project future warming (thus being the rationale for global warming climate policies) show significantly higher temperatures than what is being observed. Only the Russian climate model and satellite/weather balloon data closely match present temperatures in the lower troposphere. This suggests that most climate models ascribe too great an effect of warming (climate sensitivity) to carbon dioxide.
This means the climate models should not be used to set public policy.
No temperature can be accurately measured to a precision of less than ±0.1°C. global temperature data is a metric of averaged and adjusted data from many sources, suggesting that a 0.5°C difference in temperature is moot and an arbitrary figure. It does not reference an actual measurement of earth’s temperature; people are being misled.
by Renee Hannon, October 29, 2018 in WUWT
This post is a coarse screening assessment of HadCRUT4 global temperature anomalies to determine the impact, if any, of data quality and data coverage. There has been much discussion on WUWT about the quality of the Hadley temperature anomaly dataset since McLean’s Audit of the HadCRUT4Global Temperature publication which is paywalled. I purchased a copy to see what all the hub-bub was about, and it is well worth the $8 in my view. Anthony Watts’ review of McLean’s findings and executive summary can be found here.
A key chart for critical study is McLean’s Figure 4.11 in his report. McLean suggests that HadCRUT4 data prior to 1950 is unreliable due to inadequate global coverage and high month-to-month temperature variability. For this post, I subdivided McLean’s findings into three groups shown with added shading: Good data which covers the years post-1950. During this period global data coverage is excellent at greater than 75% and month-to-month temperature variation is low. Questionable data occurs from 1880 to 1950. During this period global data coverage ranged from 40% to 70% with higher monthly temperature variations. Poor data is pre-1880 when global coverage ranged from 14 to 25% with extreme monthly temperature variations.
by David Whitehouse, October 29, 2018 in GWPF
The IPCC appears to have secretly changed the definition of what constitutes ‘climate’ by mixing existing and non-existing data
The definition of ‘climate’ adopted by the World Meteorological Organisation is the average of a particular weather parameter over 30 years. It was introduced at the 1934 Wiesbaden conference of the International Meteorological Organisation (WMO’s precursor) because data sets were only held to be reliable after 1900, so 1901 – 1930 was used as an initial basis for assessing climate. It has a certain arbitrariness, it could have been 25 years.
For its recent 1.5°C report the IPCC has changed the definition of climate to what has been loosely called “the climate we are in.” It still uses 30 years for its estimate of global warming and hence climate – but now it is the 30 years centred on the present.