A Climate Realist’s (not so) short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change. Question 9 (of 16) Are the predictions reliable?

NOV. 28, 2015 gave his answers to 16 questions in the N.Y. Times regarding Climate Change. This Climate realist added his answer.

 Answers to Question 1: How much is the planet heating up?

Answers to Question 2. How much trouble are we in?

Answers to Question 3. Is there anything I can do?

Answers to Question 4. What’s the optimistic scenario?

Answers to Question 5. Will reducing meat in my diet help the climate?

Answers to Question 6. What’s the worst-case scenario?

Answers to Question 7. Will a tech breakthrough help us?

Answers to Question 8. How much will the seas rise?

Justin Gillis answer to Question 9. Are the predictions reliable?

“They’re not perfect, but they’re grounded in solid science.

The idea that Earth is sensitive to greenhouse gases is confirmed by many lines of scientific evidence. For instance, the basic physics suggesting that an increase of carbon dioxide traps more heat was discovered in the 19th century, and has been verified in thousands of laboratory experiments.

Climate science does contain uncertainties, of course. The biggest is the degree to which global warming sets off feedback loops, such as a melting of sea ice that will darken the surface and cause more heat to be absorbed, melting more ice, and so forth. It is not clear exactly how much the feedbacks will intensify the warming; some of them could even partially offset it. This uncertainty means that computer forecasts can give only a range of future climate possibilities, not absolute predictions.

But even if those computer forecasts did not exist, a huge amount of evidence suggests that scientists have the basic story right. The most important evidence comes from the study of past climate conditions, a field known as paleoclimate research. The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises. A hundred miles inland from today’s East Coast, seashells can be dug from ancient beaches that are three million years old, a blink of an eye in geologic time. These past conditions are not a perfect guide to the future, either, because humans are pumping carbon dioxide into the air far faster than nature has ever done.

My answer to Question 9. Are the predictions reliable?

They are not perfect, for sure, but are they even grounded in solid science? For a model to have credibility it must be tested with measurements, and pass the test. There is important evidence suggesting the basic story is wrong. All greenhouse gases work by affecting the lapse rate in the tropics. They thus create a “hot spot” in the tropical troposphere. The theorized “hot spot” is shown in the early IPCC publications. (Fig A)

Fig. B shows observations. The hotspot is not there. If the hotspot is not there, the models must be wrong. So what is wrong with the models?

The models all assume greenhouse gases are additive. This is true for low concentrations and over short distances, such as is done in laboratory environments. Yet there is one truth bout heat absorption.  Once all the energy in one frequency band is absorbed, that is it. If the water vapor has already absorbed the energy, no matter of added CO2 will change that. This is largely true in the tropics, where water vapor is dominant. As CO2 levels increased, no hotspot formed in the tropics. Near the poles the situation is different,  more CO2 will lead to higher temperatures, but always less than what would have been predicted by separately adding the effects of water vapor and CO2.

[The amount of carbon dioxide in the air has fluctuated naturally in the past, and every time it rises, the Earth warms up, ice melts, and the ocean rises.]

This statement should read: Every time temperature rose in the past,  the ice melted, and the oceans warmed up, causing carbon dioxide to be released from  ice and oceans and rise with a 300 to 800 years delay,  the amount of water vapor rose, increasing the earth’s cloud cover,  stopping the temperature rise, and after a time delay CO2 also stopped rising, and ocean levels stabilized.

So CO2 is an effect of, not a cause for the observed temperature rise.

Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth used this very argument to show CO2 causes temperature rise. A British court found that this was one of the 9 errors of fact that appear in the movie. The court ruled that any theater showing the movie would need to inform the audience of these 9 errors. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/3310137/Al-Gores-nine-Inconvenient-Untruths.html

Answers to Question 10. Why do people question climate change?

Answers to Question 11. Is crazy weather tied to climate change?

Answers to Question 12. Will anyone benefit from global warming?

Answers to Question 13. Is there any reason for hope?

Answers to Question 14. How does agriculture affect climate change?

Answers to Question 15. Will the seas rise evenly across the planet?

Answers to Question 16. Is it really all about carbon?

A Climate Realist’s (not so) short Answers to Hard Questions About Climate Change. Question 4 (of 16) What’s the optimistic scenario?

NOV. 28, 2015 gave his answers to 16 questions in the N.Y. Times regarding Climate Change. This Climate realist added his answer.

 Answers to Question 1: How much is the planet heating up?

Answers to Question 2. How much trouble are we in?

Answers to Question 3. Is there anything I can do?

Justin Gillis answer to Question 4. What’s the optimistic scenario?

“Several things have to break our way.

In the best case that scientists can imagine, several things happen: Earth turns out to be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than currently believed; plants and animals manage to adapt to the changes that have already become inevitable; human society develops much greater political will to bring emissions under control; and major technological breakthroughs occur that help society both to limit emissions and to adjust to climate change.

The two human-influenced variables are not entirely independent, of course: Technological breakthroughs that make clean energy cheaper than fossil fuels would also make it easier to develop the political will for rapid action.

Scientists say the odds of all these things breaking our way are not very high, unfortunately. The Earth could just as easily turn out to be more sensitive to greenhouse gases than less. Global warming seems to be causing chaos in parts of the natural world already, and that seems likely to get worse, not better. So in the view of the experts, simply banking on a rosy scenario without any real plan would be dangerous. They believe the only way to limit the risks is to limit emissions.”

My answer to Question 4. What’s the optimistic scenario?

We are now in a sweet spot as to climate, not too warm and no ice age yet. Were it not for increasing CO2 levels the little ice age might have triggered the onset of a real ice age, but a lot of factors, such as coming out of the Maunder solar minimum, starting industrialization in England and Germany sooting up the growing glaciers so they started melting again, the diminishing effect from the Tycho Brahe and Kepler supernovas cosmic radiation, all contributed to get us out of the start of the new ice age. Yet, we are into the latter stages of the bog generating phase of the interglacial period, and the onset of a new ice age is overdue.

We need more CO2, not less to keep us in the climate sweet spot. Increasing CO2 levels to between 850 and 1000 ppm should delay the onset by about 2000 to 5000 years (my guess), but after that the next ice age is coming. Historically, according to the Milankovitch cycles we should have already entered the next ice age.

This picture is simplified, but together with the other cycles the picture is quite complicated.

The take home from this picture is that daily insolation (at the 60th latitude) can vary by as much as 100 w/m2 or about 50 times the effect of a doubling of the CO2 level. It is also worth noting that the normal state of the earth is ice age, and thermal runaways have never occurred, even when in past geological ages, CO2 levels were over 10000 ppm.

Answers to Question 5. Will reducing meat in my diet help the climate?Answers to Question 6. What’s the worst-case scenario?

Answers to Question 7. Will a tech breakthrough help us?

Answers to Question 8. How much will the seas rise?

Answers to Question 9. Are the predictions reliable?

Answers to Question 10. Why do people question climate change?

Answers to Question 11. Is crazy weather tied to climate change?

Answers to Question 12. Will anyone benefit from global warming?

Answers to Question 13. Is there any reason for hope?

Answers to Question 14. How does agriculture affect climate change?

Answers to Question 15. Will the seas rise evenly across the planet?

Answers to Question 16. Is it really all about carbon?

 

Snow in Sahara before Christmas! A Limerick.

saharasnowIt snowed in Sahara last night!

Ain Sefra’s, Algeria delight.

It did last for a day.

Cold. What more can I say?

A wrench in the Climate Change fight.

It is the first time since February 1979 it has snowed in Ain Sefra, located on the edge of the Sahara Desert. That snow lasted for about an hour, and it was mid-winter. This time the snow lasted for a whole day, and it was on the last day of fall!

I guess this is why the alarmists changed from calling it Global Warming to Climate change. Snow that lies doesn’t lie.

It is getting cold.

Look at the snow cover!

ims2016355_asiaeurope

Polar Ocean Challenge in trouble. Too much Arctic ice.

svalbard-day2-16th-0924-2On June 19th 2016, the Polar Ocean Challenge expedition left Bristol in the boat Northabout to circumnavigate the North Pole anticlockwise. By doing this they hoped to demonstrate that the Arctic sea ice coverage shrinks back so far now in the summer months that sea that was permanently locked up now can allow passage through.

Permanent irreversible change in the sea ice landscape of the Arctic seems to them inevitable. This will / is already having global economic political, social and environmental implications. The goal seems lofty and idealistic enough.

There is only one major problem. The Arctic Ice Cap isn’t cooperating. Let us take a look at the polar ice cap on Aug 6, 2015.

CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20150806 The North East Passage  was open for clear sailing the whole Russian coastline and they planned to go through the North East Passage ice choke point, Cape Chelyuskin on or about Aug 5. 2016. It is now Aug 8, and the boat is huddling in a sheltered cove waiting for the ice to melt. Taking a look at the Arctic ice cap for Aug 6, 2016.FullSize_CICE_combine_thick_SM_EN_20160806There seems to be a lot of melting left to be done before they can pass through the choke point.

How bad is it? The total Arctic ice volume on Aug 6 last year was around 6250 cubic kilometre. This year the volume on Aug 6 was about 8000  km3, a year to year increase of about 28%. The  ice volume is now very close to the 30 year average.

Reality has a way of getting in the way of the best laid plans and the most ambitious climate models.

If you want to follow the future adventures of the ship Northabout, their website is http://polarocean.co.uk/calendar/

Update: Looking at the tracker, Northabout seems to have passed Cape Cherlyuskin the afternoon of Aug 9, only 4 days behind schedule. They should be able to sail another 50 miles or so before hitting heavy pack ice.

Verse 83 of the Obama Impeachment song: Global Warming drives us crazy.

obama-mentally-illHere is the link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/04/04/fact-sheet-what-climate-change-means-your-health-and-family

The White House claims are alarmism at its worst, mostly complete nonsense.

On Obama’s visit to Cuba, he said in the joint press conference with Raúl Castro:

Our governments will (…) work together to protect the beautiful waters of this region that we share. And as two countries threatened by climate change, I believe we can work together to protect communities and our low-lying coasts.”

This brings us to verse 83 of the Obama Impeachment song (as if sung by President Barack Hussein Obama to the tune of “Please release me, let me go”)

Global Warming drives me mad

I said to Castro, my comrade.

Common sense is gone, too bad.

I can only say: You have been had.

Here is the complete impeachment song: https://lenbilen.com/2015/02/25/the-complete-obama-impeachment-song/

Obama on leadership, COP21, the pause, warmest year on record, the facts.

Asking Obama about his comments a year ago that America is the indispensable nation and that America leads, CBS 60 minutes interviewer Steve Kroft commented that Vladimir Putin “seems to be challenging that leadership” with his actions in Syria.

Obama’s response was revealing about how he sees the role of the United States as a global leader. “If you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we’ve got a different definition of leadership,” Obama replied. “My definition of leadership would be leading on climate change, an international accord that potentially we’ll get in Paris. My definition of leadership is mobilizing the entire world community to make sure that Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon. And with respect to the Middle East, we’ve got a 60-country coalition that isn’t suddenly lining up around Russia’s strategy.”

Leadership? Obama seems to have an unique angle on leadership. He claimed in his  April 18 weekly address to the nation, : “2014 was the planet’s warmest year on record.”

This will be one of his main arguments going into the Climate Conference COP21 in Paris in December.

How accurate is this statement?

Besides from the fact that we are not even close to the Minoan warming period 3000 years ago, or the Roman warming period 2000 years ago, not even the Medieval warming period 1000 years ago it is way off the mark on other facts as well. The figure below is from the Greenland Ice Core probings and is one of the best gauges for temperature records the last 10000 years. 2014 was still one of the 1000 coldest. Note also that the inter-glacial maximum temperature was around 6000 years ago and we are well into the bog-building face where normally Carbon would be deposited in the bogs and trigger the next ice-age. Burning Coal slows down the cool-down.

Greenlandgisp-last-10000-new

We are now experiencing an 18 year 8 month pause in the warming occurring since the little ice age. This is an undisputed fact if one looks at the satellite data.

18yr8monthspauseHowever, if one looks at the data generated by the surface stations it looks quite different. There has been a substantial rise in global temperatures since measurements began, and indeed, this century is so far the warmest on record.

ncdc.global.history.0910So, who is right? The official satellite measurements or the official surface temperature measurements?

The satellite measurements are done without any corrections, but the instruments are frequently calibrated to ensure no temperature drifts occur over time.

On the other hand, the United states Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) is the custodian of temperature data from the 48 contiguous states. As temperature stations are dropped and others are added they try to do a homogenization step to present the most probable past temperatures for the 48 states. This leads to temperature adjustments to past readings. They sincerely try to do the best job possible to ensure the adjustments are without bias of any kind. If we look at the next picture they did a near perfect temperature adjustment of past temperatures as a linear function of CO2 concentration.

tempC02(Credit to Tom Heller who did the analysis). This means that all homogenization was performed assuming the temperature adjustments had to conform to the IPCC model.

In other words, by assuming the model is right you adjust the data until they fit the model. Using the adjusted data you then claim this proves the model is right.

Climate science?

Global warming? Ice-breaker rerouted to Hudson Bay to assist commercial ships rather than doing research on global warming. A Limerick.

Irony of ironies:

CCGS Amundsen re-routed to Hudson Bay to help with heavy ice

Worst ice conditions in 20 years force change of plans to icebreaker research program

CBC News Posted: Jul 22, 2015 6:56 AM CT

CCGS_Amundsen_in_the_Arctic

Instead of the North Baffin Bay

the Amundsen did turn away.

“Too much ice in July,

all our models awry.”

Must break Ice down in Hudson’s ice bay.

A carefully planned, 115-day scientific expedition on board the floating research vessel, the CCGS Amundsen, has been derailed as the icebreaker was called to help resupply ships navigate heavy ice in Hudson Bay.

“Obviously it has a large impact on us,” says Martin Fortier, executive director of ArcticNet, which coordinates research on the vessel. “It’s a frustrating situation.”

During the summer, the  Amundsen operates as a floating research center studying climate change with experiments running 24 hours a day. This year it was scheduled to reach North Baffin Bay.

Full story: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/ccgs-amundsen-re-routed-to-hudson-bay-to-help-with-heavy-ice-1.3162900

This is the slowest melt of the Hudson Bay ice in many, many years.

And the melt season is rapidly ending. All Ice Ages start in the Hudson Bay region, not the North Pole.

Update: Ice on Hudson Bay still there on Aug 5:CMMBCTCA2