UKC

ARTICLE: The Climate Crisis and the Future of Mountaineering

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 UKC Articles 11 Dec 2019

Glaciers in the European Alps have lost approximately half of their volume since 1900.For International Mountain Day 2019, Athlyn Cathcart-Keays explores the possible future of mountaineering and trekking if global warming is left unchecked, and what the mountain community can do to tackle the climate and ecological crisis...

Read more

3
 Frank R. 11 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

I just finished reading an epic book by Jon Gertner - "The Ice at the End of the World" about climate change in Greenland, exploration of it and history of glaciology from the early days to now. Quite a gripping read, especially with the yesterday's report about the Greenland's ice melting (Nature). Heartily recommended, even if not exactly "heart-warming"...

In reply to UKC Articles:

For me flying for climbing and issue of hypocrisy is a big problem. I will soon go for my ice climbing to Canada. I used to climb in Scotland and Ecrins, but for last two seasons switched to Banff area simply because winter conditions are too unreliable in Europe (because of climate change). I have to plan my holidays in advance and cannot chase weather even in the UK. I do not feel, that I can justify supporting an XR and other activists if I myself will do take this flight, which so many people will rightly declare unnecessary. 

Should I stop flying for climbing?

I guess one thing that stops me from making drastic lifestyle change and giving up what I really love to do (its wonderful out there in Banff) is that when you "listen to scientists", you hear that all of them have no problem in travelling to conferences, when they could easily give the same message over Internet. Basically, they travel (most of them have to fly) to speak in a room so big that they can be seen only on the screen and heard only through loudspeaker. They could have just connected laptops at home and give the same talk. How can you tell children that they have no future because of flying and then go to a conference, which attracts thousands of flights because online "is not the same"?

On a positive side, if the next Global Summit would take place as the biggest online event on Earth, if prominent influencers moved their activities online, I could start arguing with my employer that we should cut our business travel. If you break "its not the same" culture millions of business flights could be eliminated and most of people who would stop flying would not sacrifice anything - who would not like to work online and have private life in real life rather than other way round. If I could stop my business flights, than on balance flying for climbing once a year would not feel so bad.

For me flying hypocrisy is a big factor. We have all technology to go carbon neutral and we need "only" a culture change. This is all setting example game and I think that those who speak loud should also lead by example. The idea that I fly and then tell other people that they should see the Rockies only in David Attenborough movie will not fly.

Finally, this is very controversial topic and if I made you angry with anything that I said I apologize. I think a lot about it and somehow want to share my thoughts on this friendly forum without character limit (I wonder how long this is going to last )

14
 Harry Jarvis 11 Dec 2019
In reply to andrzej kierzek:

> On a positive side, if the next Global Summit would take place as the biggest online event on Earth, if prominent influencers moved their activities online, I could start arguing with my employer that we should cut our business travel.

Why do you have to wait for others to do what you think they should do? Why can't you just get on with it yourself? If it's the right thing to do, it's the right thing to do, regardless of what anyone else is doing. 

And from a purely business point of view, if you can do everything you need to do online, then flying for business is a waste of time, money and energy.

 ClimberEd 11 Dec 2019
In reply to andrzej kierzek:

As someone who used to attend the global summit for work I can tell you that nothing is as good as face to face discussion and interaction, especially when so many different cultures and languages are involved. 

On the flip side, it is perfectly reasonable to expect everyone (including the COP delegates) to cut back on (not cut out entirely) the amount they fly.

1
 RX-78 11 Dec 2019
In reply to andrzej kierzek:

The real benefit of attending conferences is the networking and behind the scenes meetings, including  informal and serpendipious meetings. 

As Harry says above anyway if you believe it to be the right thing why not do it now? 

Post edited at 15:13
1
 colinnave 11 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

A good and balanced article containing both established data as well as being open about some of the uncertainties. Like the author, I believe numbers (and units) are important when discussing these issues so I do have one small question?

"After approximately 1500m2 of rock fell from near the summit of the Matterhorn in 2003"

Is this meant to be 1500 cubic metres? To help put this in context,  it would then be significantly bigger than the rockfall at Castle Rock of Tiermain just over a year ago. 

Colin

pasbury 11 Dec 2019
In reply to andrzej kierzek:

My employer has cut down on business travel drastically. It saves a lot of money for a start. Online meeting tools and videoconferencing were tricky to get used to for some but now they are the norm. I have to admit I miss the travelling a bit, meeting people and spending time in European cities was fun.

I haven't flown for leisure in fourteen years. But I can't claim any credit for that as the main reason is cost and having children. Also we have found our favourite holiday destinations in the UK - one's that we love visiting over and over. Again I do miss the ease of getting somewhere very different from home that flying affords. I'd be interested in using trains more (obviously wouldn't help getting to Banff).

In conclusion I'd be happy enough to never get on a plane for the rest of my life, there are alternatives.

 Myr 11 Dec 2019
In reply to andrzej kierzek:

> Should I stop flying for climbing?

Yes.

> I guess one thing that stops me from making drastic lifestyle change and giving up what I really love to do (its wonderful out there in Banff) is that when you "listen to scientists", you hear that all of them have no problem in travelling to conferences, when they could easily give the same message over Internet.

This is a crucial point. No wonder that there is cynicism about the motivation for climate change advocacy, when those of us who profess to care about it still lead needlessly carbon-rich lifestyles.

Personally I found that I was attending international conferences, probably because I really wanted to visit that country all-expenses-paid and have a good time. Once I had subconsciously made the decision to go, I justified the carbon consumption to myself post-hoc, claiming that it provided a unique opportunity to convey my message or do networking. In reality, the negative impact of long haul flights greatly outweigh the environmental benefits of some marginally better dissemination of scientific knowledge. But furthermore, also, the additional hidden negative impact of environmental scientists flying is that it suggests we don't really believe what we claim about climate change - and that other people shouldn't either.

This year I had an abstract accepted to give a 15 minute talk on how climate change is influencing species' distributions - at a conference on the other side of the planet. The hypocrisy of this made me have a think, and then pull out of that conference and I thereafter stopped applying to overseas conferences. It's also made me think about how I have been back-justifying air travel for recreational reasons, for years - so I've stopped doing that, too.

It's taken me an embarrassing amount of time to move from 'What I'm doing is bad, but I deserve it' to 'What I'm doing is bad, so I'm going to stop doing it'.

 JohnBson 11 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

Shonky introduction to the article which could have been written without the XR bit. I've no guilt about not being an XRer and I think Caff is just a boring self riteous knob, like myself, however unlike him I actually do something that benefits the planet and chose my job based on maximising my potential to reduce global carbon emissions. Unfortunately it means I climb less than I'd like but Im a firm believer action that actions speak louder than words. Protest movements however they are dressed up aren't going to alter anything as fast as better engineering and science. 

20
 wbo2 11 Dec 2019
In reply to JohnBson:no but without public/customer pressure to use that technology takeup will be far slower

 tjdodd 11 Dec 2019
In reply to andrzej kierzek:

I think it is difficult.  After many years of traveling to some amazing places around the world for trekking, mountaineering and ice climbing I have decided to stop flying.  It is going to be really difficult for me as travel, discovering new places and experiences is a large part of me.  I traveled a lot this year in particular and next year will be a real test of my commitment to stop flying.

However, for me it is very much a personal choice and everyone has to make their own choice on this.  I was really interested to hear an interview with who I think was Alexandra Cousteau (granddaughter of Jacques) on Radio 4 a few weeks ago.  She is an environmental activist but also travels a lot.  What she spoke about was that people should not necessarily stop flying but that they should think carefully about why they are flying.  My recollection was that she talked about meaningful travel. 

My personal reflection on this is that in the first instance you should think about whether you need to fly/travel, why you are flying and are there alternatives.  I think it is then about what positive impact the travel will result in.  I think this can be positive impact on others/the world, so for example scientists attending climate conferences (but many other examples as well).  But I also think it is about positive impact on yourself.  I have certainly benefited hugely from the many experiences I have had that required air travel and a large part of why I have traveled was to develop personally.  I will never regret the travel but acknowledge that I have clearly contributed to the situation we are in.

So my hope is that people stop and reflect before booking flights.  I do not think they should stop flying but be thoughtful about why and the implications of their actions (both positive and negative).

1
 JohnBson 11 Dec 2019
In reply to wbo2:

If you can clearly demonstrate that your technology will half the energy bill of a large company they will bite your hand off.

Efficiency becomes even more important with larger business because savings can have a massive impact on profit margins. Going green and minimising energy consumption is a simple economic decision if the argument is framed correctly. The hardest part is getting uptake due to the risk averse nature of large companies. 

 wbo2 12 Dec 2019
In reply to JohnBson:yes, so too help get over that hump you need a bit of a push which is where publicity,  pressure and a need to be doing something (or being seen to) comes in. 

 Tobes 12 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

”For Chamonix-based guide Jon Bracey, the future is less bleak. "As humans, we're very good at adapting, and we will ultimately adapt. Will it be possible or deemed relatively safe to ascend Mont Blanc via the Goûter route in 50 years time? "It's impossible to know", he says. "Mountaineering in the European Alps will still be popular, but our seasons will just have evolved even more".

That’s still pretty bleak. My interpretation of this is - things are bad and getting worst but it’s fine because we humans are so adaptable we can handle what ever comes our way.

Doesn’t really address the cause, just an optimistic view of how we can still climb mountains so, you know, don’t worry she’ll be right! 
 

Still unless you’re Chris Packham it’s  hard to say ‘could everyone stop driving, stop flying and stop reproducing for a bit and that might just about save us’ (of course it’s far from as simple as this) but hey, climb on! 

1
 cb294 12 Dec 2019
In reply to andrzej kierzek:

If you seriously think that the important bit about scientific conferences is the presentations you have no clue. For that, you can read the publications. No get back under your bridge.

CB

10
 betabunch 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Tobes:

That's also a very privileged view of the world - people who can afford to adapt to rapidly changing climate will and will still go on their jollies to nice places, but the 3.4bn people who live on less than $5.50 per day will struggle to afford to adapt and many will suffer and die, and indeed many already are.

1
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

I do support online work whenever I can. However frequently I have to go because if I contact important client online and somebody visits them, then somebody's message is considered more important, just because of the visit. Since I cannot afford to be out-competed I have to go.

This is example why sometimes big, disruptive, all-of-the-sudden culture change for everybody is needed to make something happen. I am too small to make it happen, thus I am appealing to big influencers (Global summits) for help. If the culture is changed so that the most important meeting is the one where we have best Virtual Reality connection, rather than the one where we travel, a lot of new businesses will open quickly and take online to next Science Fiction level - why can't we have a telepresence restaurant serving meal on two sides of high definition screen? Current tools are optimised for mobility - so people can call in why they are on the airport ...

I would love business travel to go, so there is a space to travel for experiences that you really cannot have without being there ..

Thanks for reply!

 Tobes 12 Dec 2019
In reply to betabunch:

Of course, thanks for adding that perspective. somehow giving it a thumbs up seems inappropriate-

 99ster 12 Dec 2019
In reply to betabunch:

"That's also a very privileged view of the world - people who can afford to adapt to rapidly changing climate will and will still go on their jollies to nice places, but the 3.4bn people who live on less than $5.50 per day will struggle to afford to adapt and many will suffer and die, and indeed many already are."

Exactly.  This whole discussion on flying is the very definition of a 'First World Problem'.

Post edited at 09:14
In reply to UKC Articles:

During the Quaternary era, changes in climate, flora and fauna were very rapid, sometimes as rapid as boreal to savannah within 40 years, and ten years is possible. We can not comprehend the rapidity of this entirely natural change. Are the readers of this article aware that the European Alps were essentially ice-free from 10,000 to 3,500 years ago during the Holocene optimum, and that we currently live in "ice-house earth" which represents the coldest part of the past few thousand years?

DC

25
 Andy Moles 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

Ignoratio elenchi.

Not every article on climate change needs to give a potted history of climatic fluctuations.

2
 gaw 12 Dec 2019
In reply to JohnBson:

A lot of things wouldn't have happened without protest movements - women wouldn't be voting today for one.

This protest will lead to governments prioritising the development of better engineering and science, something which hasn't happened so far despite a lot of that being in place and scientists presenting the data to governments. 

I believe XR has a very diverse makeup so whatever you think of James MacHaffie, he's just 'a small drop of water' although I hope he's on the right side of history.

I agree actions speak louder than words, so we should stop flying for example and also campaign (which I consider a very important action).

 Iain Smith 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Andy Moles:

No, but it puts in context that the climate was warmer before (for reasons less understood - probably not man made), and we all survived.

Thinking, reason, knowledge, debate and transparency help mankind. Smug comments shutting down debate, do not.

https://www.icelandreview.com/news/3000-year-old-trees-excavated-under-glacier/

1
In reply to Iain Smith:

> No, but it puts in context that the climate was warmer before (for reasons less understood - probably not man made), and we all survived.

Really? How do you know that? It would certainly have caused mass migration - at a time when the population was small enough not to be the catalyst for catastophic war it may well cause this time round.

2
 Pkrynicki1984 12 Dec 2019
In reply to pasbury:

True enough ...what about people with relatives / family in America or Australia?

2
 Andy Moles 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Iain Smith:

> , and we all survived.

Did we?

Clearly some of us did.

Climate changes have caused population bottlenecks and extinctions in many animals, including, likely, humans. Climate changes that were nothing to do with us.

That should not impact on our concerns about human influence on the current crisis.

I apologise if my comment appeared smug. Which debate do I appear to be shutting down?

1
 summo 12 Dec 2019
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

> During the Quaternary era, changes in climate, flora and fauna were very rapid, sometimes as rapid as boreal to savannah within 40 years, and ten years is possible. We can not comprehend the rapidity of this entirely natural change. Are the readers of this article aware that the European Alps were essentially ice-free from 10,000 to 3,500 years ago during the Holocene optimum, and that we currently live in "ice-house earth" which represents the coldest part of the past few thousand years?

You are confusing climatic changes and regional snow fall patterns of inter glacial periods with exceedingly short term increases in temperature that directly correlate with human air pollution since the start of the industrial revolution. Of course correlation isn't always causation, but when tested and investigated by literally hundreds of scientists, from a multitude of countries, with differing political and funding backgrounds etc. 99.9% have drawn the same conclusions. 

Post edited at 13:38
1
 Jim Hamilton 12 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

There doesn't seem to be much in the way of suggestions with what the "mountain community" can do to tackle this crisis? other than extend your trips abroad for a month or two, or perhaps go on a sponsored jolly across the Alps.   

1
 colinakmc 12 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

My horizons are limited to an occasional trip to the alps, and short raids in Scotland. I’d prefer to go to Switzerland by train but the price is horrendous from Glasgow. Equally I’ve tended to be selfish about taking my own car for home trips and I think I should do more to promote car shares, or use of public transport, for hut weekends. But will I? I’ll need to change other expectations and other behaviours to achieve that.

theres always the bike...

 George Allan 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Not enough has been said about the economics of developing countries, a number of which depend heavily on Western tourism (Nepal being an extreme example), This is a real dilemma; however, a few suggestions:

1. A lot of flying simply can't be justified (e.g. stag weekends in Prague; long weekends in European mountain areas; some business trips) and people who continue to indulge like this should be 'politely shamed'.

2. If going abroad to climb, go less often but go for longer. In respect of the economics of developing countries this would make for no change but would halve the flying carbon foot print or more.

3. In the UK, if we can go by public transport we should do so. For those with a bit more time, it is more possible than we like to think. Also apply the go for longer/less often matra.

4. Individual transport allows greater flexibility but perhaps we could sacrifice this a little by club's using minibuses etc.

With a bit of imagination and commitment, we can seriously reduce what we are putting up there without wearing the hairiest of hair shirts. However, business as usual must no longer be an option.

Finally, let's have no more of the following argument-'you (individual or country) are still spewing out carbon, so why should I bother?'

In reply to Jim Hamilton:

My suggestion would be do do less mountaineering, and do it more efficiently if and when we do. How much mountaineering do we need to do? Is it more important in the grand scheme of things than looking after the planet? If mountains are more important than anything else then people should move house to live by them.

1
In reply to George Allan:

> Not enough has been said about the economics of developing countries, a number of which depend heavily on Western tourism (Nepal being an extreme example), This is a real dilemma; however, a few suggestions:

Enough of this 'economic growth is essential' mantra too - it's inevitable result is a dead planet.

> Finally, let's have no more of the following argument-'you (individual or country) are still spewing out carbon, so why should I bother?'

Spot on.  The Prime minister of Fiji has said this at the COP25 summit:-

"Frankly, I'm tired of hearing major emitters excuse inaction in cutting their own emissions on the basis they are 'just a fraction' of the world's total,"

"The truth is, in a family of nearly 200 nations, collective efforts are key. We all must take responsibility for ourselves, and we all must play our part to achieve net zero.

"As I like to say, we're all in the same canoe. But currently, that canoe is taking on water with nearly 200 holes - and there are too few of us trying to patch them,"

 mrphilipoldham 13 Dec 2019
In reply to Toerag:

If that applies to nations, then surely individual responsibility also applies. Too often I see friends actively blaming big business and government yet continue to fly (on a weekly basis in one case). That same canoe could have 7bn holes and far, far too many people unwilling to change their lives to one with a bag of corks..  

 flash635 13 Dec 2019
In reply to summo:

No, I am sorry but your response to Dave Cumberland is not correct and you do not seem to have much knowledge about well researched data on alpine glaciers and the onset of modern alpine glacier retreat.  It is much too early to have been caused by anthropogenic global warming, having commenced around 1850.

There is a lot of research on alpine glacier advances and retreats.  The alpine glaciers were advancing during the period know as the Little Ice Age (LIA) after the previous losses during the Medieval Warm Period (MWP).  The advances are well captured in historical documents as well as in analysis of tree debris in glaciers that have been radiocarbon dated.  Scientific papers on this topic include (just a few examples):

Nussbaumer (2007)

Hormes et al (2001)

Scapozza et al (2009)

Joerin et al (2006)

Nussbaumer et al (2012)

The science is well documented, robust and consistent.  A good online summary (updated 2019) can be found in the following document:

https://www.unige.ch/forel/files/6715/6689/0396/Chamonix_Eng3.pdf

A quote from the document:

"The history of the Mer de Glace fluctuations has been reconstructed in detail by Nussbaumer et al. (2007). As shown in Fig. 5, glacier growth is very rapid between the years 1550 and 1600, with an advance of approximately 1’000 m (ca. 20 m/year). From 1600 to 1850, three main short melting and growth periods are at the origin of 600 – 700 m of glacier front changes. After the last maximum in 1852, the glacier tongue collapses by a length of about 1’200 m within 30 years (40 m/year). A rather stable glacier tongue with minor fluctuations is reported from about 1880 to 1930. The next phase of rapid melting between 1930 and 1970 corresponds to a glacial retreat of 800 m (20 m/year). The following plateau is from about 1970 to 1995. In the current phase of rapid glacier melting, the tongue of Mer de Glace is losing an average of 35 m of length per year. Since the 1820 maximum, thickness reduction of the Mer de Glace in the valley section at the level of the Montenvers railway station is 180 m (Fig. 4, 7)."

Three points to take away from the scientific evidence:

1. Modern warming does not result in "unprecedented" glacial retreat.  The retreat of the Mer de Glace back in 1852 was at rate at least equal to and possibly faster than currently (40m/yr).  The events today are comparable in rate terms to the events nearly 170 yrs ago.

2. The retreat in the modern period of Alpine Glaciers (and glaciers elsewhere) dates back to around 1850 -1860.  This is entirely consistent with sea level starting to rise (as it continues to do so to present at a steady linear background rate).

3. It is physically not possible for the onset of modern glacial retreat as far back as 1850 to have been initated by or influenced by human global warming.  The climate models make no such predictions and the CO2 contribution is physically far too small to caused sudden glacial retreat in 1852.

Whatever your views on the post-1950s human contribution to global warming (as stated by IPCC AR5) and its contribution to glacial retreat in the last 70 years, published scientific evidence clearly shows it CANNOT be the reason for glacial retreat to have commenced back in the mid 19th Century.  Only nature could have done that.

4
 summo 13 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

And hundreds of others will say it's human related. Just look at the last 20 or 30 years. Progressively shorter winter seasons, less snow, record summer temps causing record melt offs. Any one who has climbed in the alps over the past 30 years will have witnessed the changes. 

And Heaberli 2007, Koenig et al. 1997, Beniston 2003, UNEP 2008, Huggel et al. 2004).

Bauder, Funk, and Huss A., et al. 2007 . Ice-volume changes of selected glaciers in the Swiss Alps since the end of the 19th century. Annals of Glaciology 46: 145-149.

Beniston, M. 2003. Climatic Change in Mountain Regions: A Review of Possible Impacts. Climatic Change 59: 5-31.

Haeberli, W., et al. 2007. Integrated monitoring of mountain glaciers as key indicators of global climate change: the European Alps. Annals of Glaciology 46: 150-160.

Huggel, C., et al. 2004. An assessment procedure for glacial hazards in the Swiss Alps. Canadian Geotechnical Journal 41: 1068-1083.

Koenig and Abegg, U., et al. 1997. Impacts of Climate Change on Winter Tourism in the Swiss Alps. Journal of Sustainable Tourism 5: 46-58.

Post edited at 15:10
5
 flash635 13 Dec 2019
In reply to summo:

You are missing the point.  The alpine glaciers were advancing in the years prior to the latest (current) 30 year period you are pointing to.  You cannot consider modern glacier retreat in the context of the last 30 years and conclude ergo it must be human induced.  I know the glaciers were much advanced by the early 1980s because I was actually climbing on them then.  Nussbaumer et al (2012) points out that the Bossons Glacier reached a (cyclical) maximum in 1983, (and also a maxima in 1941 and 1921).  but that maximum was only a point on a long slow retreat back from its Little Ice Age maximum in 1812.

The current steady trend of alpine glacier retreat started far too long ago to have been caused by human CO2 releases.  To take 30 years of recent melting of alpine glaciers and conclused we should all be worrying about flying is completely out of context.  Modern alpine glacier retreat (and commensurate sea level rise) has been proceeding steadily and linearly for around 170 years.  That is way too long ago for the fundamental cause to be human-induced.

There are concerned people on these forum's who I know genuinely worry about human causes of global warming.  But the level of concern is starting to border on hysteria (cue this article by XR supporter) and a little historical scientific context should be taken.

Alpine glacier retreat did not suddenly start 30 or so yrs ago.  I am old enough to know that.  Alpine glacial retreat started around 170 yrs ago and has continued in a steady fashion since then, with periodic advances and retreats superimposed, most likely related to natural North Atlantic Oscillation and AMO quasi-periodicity.  And whatever initiated modern alpine glacier retreat cannot have been man-made.  Man-made effects may have been added since then, but the original start of retreat way back in 1850 must have been natural.

Note that the length loss of the Mer de Glace in the retreat around 1852 was at 40 m/yr at a time when the only cause must have been natural.  The modern retreat rate is 35 m/yr.  I would not go so far as to say its slower now than then, but the rate of retreat back in 1852 is absolutely comparable to the present day - which means human induced effects may be significantly smaller than current hysterical reactions are based on.  There is plenty of archaeological evidence that in the Bronze age, Roman and medieval warm periods many alpine passes that were permanently snow bound until the last 30 years were snow-free passes in those earlier times and frequently travelled.  That means that there are examples of previous warm periods in the last few thousand years when the alps must have been as warm as today.  These are not conjecture - finding Roman and Bronze age artefacts under what was until recently permanent snow cover is compelling evidence of previous, comparable, warm periods.

4
In reply to flash635:

I think you are being very selective in your fact picking here, the majority of the literature on the subject (and there is a lot) states that although alpine glaciers have been declining since the little age, the rate of decline in recent years is massively larger then previous patterns and is linked to global climatic changes.

No one disputes climate changes naturally but the rate of change seen in recent years is much greater on any comparable time period in the geological record. 'Normal' geological cycles are a totally invalid explanation for the kind of observations of global average temperatures seen today. This cartoon is a neat demonstration of this https://xkcd.com/1732/

Yours

A geologist.

In reply to ebdon:

No! Quaternary change was on numerous occasions exceedingly rapid and this is well-documented from cave deposits in the Mendips. Nothing today is "unprecedented". Your cartoon is the roundly discredited hockey stick and should not be reproduced, it is fraudulent.

Another geologist.

DC

6
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

It's not roundly discredited Dave, this was gone through in detail on another thread recently, nor in fact is this the infamous 'hockey stick' graph you are referring, covering a much longer time range. It's just a simple display of the observed facts which I don't really understand how any one can dispute, I mean some one has read a thermometer and written it down! What's to argue with!

Should also add the temperature in the mendips has f*ck all to do with global average temperatures, it doesn't today and it didn't 20000 years ago!

Post edited at 17:01
1
 flash635 13 Dec 2019
In reply to ebdon:

I am not being selective in choice of papers - these are well known, widely cited papers by alpine glacier researchers.

As a corollary to my point, the most modern and well referenced papers on sea level rise are by Jevrejeva.  No one disputes her 2008 and subsequent published 2014 papers on tide gauge data for sea level rise.  They are a core reference in IPCC AR5.  But her data only shows evidence for long term linear rate increase in sea level (commencing around 1860).  Shorter period acceleration and deceleration can be shown with a 30 yr moving slope, but the consistent trend is linear and starts back around 1860 (remember sea level rise will lag glacial melt - estimated about 10 - 20 years).

The fastest increase in the rate of sea level rise in Jevrejeva 2008 and 2014 was the period leading up to the 1950s NOT the current period.  Even IPCC AR5 (in somewhat tortuous language) confirms what I have just said.  You are a geologist so please feel free to fact check yourself by going to Figure 13.7b in IPCC AR5 showing rate change curves for sea level - the data sets clearly show the latest period is not unprecedented and rate increases up to the 1950s were just as significant and (in the case of Jevrejeva) larger rate rises than in current tide gauge data - a point also confirmed in Jevrejeva 2014 which post-dates AR5.

The start point of modern warming, as evidenced by alpine glacier retreat and sea level rise curves (which lag 10 - 20 years) is around 1850.  That is way too early for CO2 effects.  There is nothing selective about the statements I have made and they can be easily fact checked by looking at data in the global warming science report of IPCC AR5.

Summo has also given some references, but most there are impacts, not historical datasets.  I am not going to look at the Journal of Sustainable Tourism for scientific research but I noted quickly that Bauder et al which does show a minimal historical record also confirms steady decline since 1870s.  Summo cited Koenig et al. 1997 but that is a database compilation description as far as I can see, not an analysis of historical trends.

Feel free to point me to a reference which contradicts the classic alpine glacier papers I quoted.  Always prepared to read new papers on the subject.  I would recommend you actually read the examples I gave and then follow up on their references.  As you are a geologist you will find them interesting.  Note I didn't say whether I have expertise or not, or what in - I am not appealing to authority, just citing clear scientific evidence in the published literature.

BTW the cartoon you referenced is fun but its not science and it doesn't agree with the papers I have referenced - and that includes IPCC AR5 which is regarded as the published scientific consensus.  Again, check out Figure 13.7b showing sea level rate curves.  It clearly contradicts claims of "unprecedented".

The argument for current glacial retreat is much more nuanced and long term than the current climate hysteria bandwagon.  The onset of the modern warming started way back around 1850 - 1860.  that is why Summo referenced the last 30 yrs - then it looks unprecedented.  But in the longer context of the last 170 yrs, there may be cause for concern but not justification for hysteria.

3
 summo 13 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

I haven't got the time to get drawn in, I think you are simplifying some of science, you can't directly correlate sea level change with glaciers, as to start with you have to factor in thermal expansion. The volume of ice in Greenland and the Antarctic make the volume of alpine glacier ice negligible in terms of impacting sea level rises. Measuring distance a glacier moves needs to consider that snow fall volume and lubrication could impact it's speed, melt off etc.

Are you trying to imply that the massive changes in the European alps in the last few decades is entirely natural and has nothing to do with our impact on the climate..   the number of 40c days France has experienced, late starting winter, early finishing ski season etc. ? 

So let's go with what you say, why are they decreasing in volume so rapidly. In disproving one theory, you almost need to prove another. 

Post edited at 17:26
2
 flash635 13 Dec 2019
In reply to summo:

I am not trying to draw you in, I appreciate not everyone has time to talk about these points and if you want to leave it at that its fine.

I will pick up a couple of points.  You said:

"Are you trying to imply that the massive changes in the European alps in the last few decades is entirely natural and has nothing to with our impact on the climate"

I was very careful not to say that.  I was pointing out that simply looking at the last few decades and then going hysterical about man-made global warming is really out of context.  There is a long term trend of alpine glacier retreat and it goes back to the 1860s.  And retreat rates back then are as high as today.  So simply looking at the loss in the last few decades and attributing it all to man-made climate change is totally out of context - historical evidence back to the 1860s indicates a significant proportion must be natural.

Your point about glacier melt and sea level rise is true, but glacier melt is a component of sea level rise.  However, perhaps I didn't make my point clear as I should.  You mention thermal expansion - well that goes with a warming.  But the modern warming also goes back to the 19th century and that most definitely cannot be explained by CO2 induced global warming theory.  The IPCC clearly states that they are only confident of warming post 1950s being >50% induced from human causes, not all the way back to the 19th Century.

The most commonly accepted reason for glacial loss in the alps is summer warming resulting in sublimation and melt.  So we have a situation where onset of modern warming, alpine glacial loss and sea level rise all go back to the 1860s or so, all increase at a fairly steady rate and all start early enough that there must be another cause other than just man-made global warming for all or part of it.  The IPCC state the period post 1950s is >50% of the warming is human-induced.  They do not make such a claim for the strong warming (for example) from about 1910 - 1950 and the climate models totally fail to predict it.

Your further comment is:

"So let's go with what you say, why are they decreasing in volume so rapidly."

They are decreasing in volume because the world is warming - that seems pretty self evident.  I am not trying to disprove a theory - I am fully aware of the physics of infrared gases and long wave radiation.  However I do consider there is compelling evidence that points to a long term climate change since the 1860s, of which any human-induced portion is only attributed by IPCC since the 1950s.  That leaves the very obvious possibility that the human-induced contributions of the last few decades may be significantly smaller than claimed.  I have noticed the tendency to hysteria recently and I am concerned that it is not founded on reason or scientific data.  Don't foget the pause or slowdown in temperature rise as we went in to the 21st Century was first denied by climate scientists and then they had to actively seek reasons as to why their models didn't predict it.

Regarding your last point:

" In disproving one theory, you almost need to prove another. "

Er - no.  That's not how science works.  Science works by providing a null hypothesis.  If the theory cannot be distinguished from the null hypothesis then the theory is suspect.  An alternative mechanism is not required to disprove something.  As a further point Karl Popper was very clear that scientific hypotheses can only be disproved (by refutation by experiment or real world data).  No hypothesis or theory can be proven true, only shown as false.  That is science.

So the examples I have given, onset of modern warming, alpine glacial retreat and sea level rise all start back in the 19th Century, much to early for the physics of increasing CO2 to be the cause.  The rates of change of all three of those observations varies quasi-periodically but in general the rate changes are similar over the entire period (with the exception of modern thermometers).  Does that leave room for human-caused climate change since the 1950s - Yes, to some extent.  But the historical evidence clearly points to long term (unknown) causes as well.  So maybe everyone should just calm down a bit and there should be a little less hysteria.

2
In reply to flash635:

I'm not entirely sure what we are arguing about here, I picked two papers from your list and both said the rate off mass lost from alpine glaciers had massively increased in recent years, co incident with rising CO2, against a backdrop of more gradual change which was kind of my point?

I'm not sure I follow your sea level point, alpine glaciers have naff all to do with sea levels.

2
pasbury 13 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

So is it OK to pump billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere then?

Let's party!!!

2
 George Allan 14 Dec 2019
In reply to Toerag:

To get away from glaciers for a bit and return to what we should do-

'Economic growth'- I agree that we need to take the massive step away from defining human wellbeing on the basis of economic growth and begin to think, politically, in terms of other indicators. However, 'climate justice' must be central to all this for two reasons:

1. The moral imperative- We must ensure that addressing climate change doesn't lead to increasing poverty for those already disadvantaged (whether it is here or elsewhere in the world).

2. The practical imperative:

a) If groups/countries feel left behind they will resist addressing the issue.

b) The left behind will take matters into their own hands and if we think that the disparity between rich and poor is currently causing the world problems, we've seen nothing yet.

 rice boy 14 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

Encourage more of the Goran Kropp's, Oli Warlow's and Pete Rhodes's of this world to tell us about their adventures.

https://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/features/classic_rock_by_bike-11284

http://www.ukclimbing.com/articles/page.php?id=3419

Only drawback I see is longish driving-to-the-crag footage.

In reply to flash635:

> So maybe everyone should just calm down a bit and there should be a little less hysteria.

Always good to be calm - As you accept that the world is warming, and assuming you also consider its possible this trend is continuing, do you feel we should engage in some geo-engineering to regulate the Earths temperature to our favour?

pasbury 14 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

I think you’re a stooge.

3
 SenzuBean 14 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

> The argument for current glacial retreat is much more nuanced and long term than the current climate hysteria bandwagon.  The onset of the modern warming started way back around 1850 - 1860.  that is why Summo referenced the last 30 yrs - then it looks unprecedented.  But in the longer context of the last 170 yrs, there may be cause for concern but not justification for hysteria.

Since you have researched so much, you should know that there is beginning to form a strong consensus that deposited soot (from the industrial revolution) had a strong hand in melting the European glaciers. This hardly disproves anything, and just really re-enforces a bigger point - burning everything at hand (whether fossil fuels, or forests for charcoal) - causes immense harm.

Edit: friendly article on the subject for others: https://www.nature.com/news/how-soot-killed-the-little-ice-age-1.13650

Post edited at 22:29
1
In reply to UKC Articles:

There is much to say about this depressing article. There are many assumptions and insufficient facts. Yes the 21st century has seen some of the warmest years since the Industrial revolution began, but at the rate that CO2 emissions are increasing, the world's average temperature should be MUCH MUCH warmer.

From 1910 to 1943 atmospheric CO2 rose by 11 ppm and temperatures increased by around 0.5 deg C; by 1943 50% of the warming that has happened since the Ind Rev had already appeared. Then from 1943 to 1978 CO2 increased by 20 ppm but temperatures fell by 0.2 deg C. From 1978 to 98 CO2 increased by 31 ppm, and temperatures went up by 0.5 deg C; however from 1998 to 2018 CO2 increased by 43 ppm, yet temperature barely managed 0.3 deg C. Two periods of warming and two of cooling with CO2 increasing throughout does not suggest that CO2 is driving global warming,World wide, glacial retreat began in 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age and well before  human CO2 emissions came into play- and currently the glacial retreat of Mer de Glace - yes it looks impressive at 35m/year, but it is no more impressive than the retreat from 1852 which recorded 40m/year.  I suggest you at least check the following report

cige.ch/forel/fileccccccccs/6715/6689/0396/Chamonix_Eng3.pdf 

and then re-write your note to let Xtinction Rebellion and club members know that neither the Mer de Glace, nor climbing are doomed, because the world is not warming as projected by IPCC models

15
 SenzuBean 15 Dec 2019
In reply to howard dewhirst:

>  Two periods of warming and two of cooling with CO2 increasing throughout does not suggest that CO2 is driving global warming,World wide, glacial retreat began in 1850, at the end of the Little Ice Age and well before  human CO2 emissions came into play- and currently the glacial retreat of Mer de Glace - yes it looks impressive at 35m/year, but it is no more impressive than the retreat from 1852 which recorded 40m/year.

You write so many words, but then expect such a simple situation that CO2 is the only factor affecting the glaciers - as I posted above, you have neglected the effect of deposited soot aerosols. It's extremely clear that the correlation between CO2 and temperature has only become vastly stronger since the 1970s. To deny the rapidly warming climate because we lack a perfect model, shows a lack of understanding of both models and climate.

1
 artif 15 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

Until recently I rarely flew anywhere, but my current job involves lots of flights. Ironically almost all are to do with low carbon electricity production and there is no real alternative to those flights. Also, while I have done the drive for hours, to get to a crag, I really don't enjoy it. I always prefer to do hobbies that don't require hours of travel. Currently live near the coast, with no rock nearby so I go paddleboarding, kitesurfing or swimming, when I lived near Bristol it was climbing and mtbs, in Cornwall I was spoilt for choice. Doesn't matter where you live there is always interesting stuff to do locally. 

Just to counter my holier than thou post, I like old cars and have a few including the target of many, a couple of 4x4s.

 summo 15 Dec 2019

In reply to PaulScramble:

> The planet heats up and cools down naturally, in cycles. If we were heading for an ice age,

But that doesn't mean that man hasn't rapidly altered the climate now. 

If change takes millennia how would that explain the last 20 or 30 years of record after record hot years? 

1
 scoth 15 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

Thank you Natalie Berry and UKC for publishing this article and Athlyn for writing it. It’s extremely timely.

There are many individual and systemic responses to the climate crisis and flying bridges these both. Clearly, flying is by far the most heavily polluting form of transport or single activity one can do. And there is almost zero chance that it will decarbonise in the timescale required to help avert worst case climate scenarios.

Whatever one believes about climate change, I trust the science. And the best science shows that on current emission trends, the carbon budget for 1.5-degree warming will be exhausted in 8 years. If that happens then the world will be on a trajectory to go beyond 2 degrees by 2050, which will be catastrophic to life as we know it. It’s also worth remembering the catastrophe is already happening, whether that’s to human or non-human life.

Because of this I now find it impossible to justify to myself that it’s ok to fly once or twice a year to go climbing or mountaineering. (even though a large proportion of aviation emissions come from frequent flyers).

But staying in the UK hasn’t restricted my experiences or enjoyment of climbing, in fact it’s probably enhanced it. I go climbing for the sense of adventure, whether that’s on a 3-metre boulder problem, a 100m Atlantic seacliff or climbing up a snowy rocky buttress. Equally I also go climbing to be with friends and to share these experiences. I’ve found that over the last 5 years all this can be had in the UK and particularly Scotland. It’s not just for punters like me. I think Dave Macleod has consistently highlighted the potential Scotland has for top climbers, in all aspects of climbing.

‘But what about the weather’? Yes, at times it may be wetter here than a summer alpine or a hot rock destination in the med. But I’ve found with my climbing friends if we’re flexible and not so focussed on climbing objectives, enjoyable adventures still can be had, even when the weather is shit.

This summer I had the privilege of going to Mingulay. I knew it was going to be wet on couple of days, so I took my wet suit and snorkelling kit. So instead of sitting in a damp tent waiting for the weather to turn, I was immersed in a magical world of seals, starfish and kelp. This contributed to a fantastic trip.

I appreciate this may not be for everyone, and I certainly don’t judge others for jumping on a plane. But given the crisis, and given climbing is such a privileged activity, we may need to rethink our whole approach to climbing. As well as top climbers, I think institutions like UKC and other climbing media have a crucial role in encouraging a cultural shift.

I welcome the space made for articles and discussions like this, but unfortunately most media outlets are locked into promoting an economic model which includes high carbon climbing lifestyles. This often takes the form of showcasing new bits of kit, destination or ‘send’ reports from some far-off aspirational land.

To bring about this cultural shift, UKC could have less celebratory articles of some unclimbed peak or line on the other side of the world and instead invite more content about adventures closer to the UK or destinations that didn’t require flying. That would be a start.

1
In reply to SenzuBean:

> Since you have researched so much, you should know that there is beginning to form a strong consensus that deposited soot (from the industrial revolution) had a strong hand in melting the European glaciers.

You are cherry picking. Don't forget Krakatoa and the nine nuclear winters after 1883, then Pinatubo, many other big Alaskan and eruptions elsewhere dumping dust and ash into the atmosphere.

Natural wildfires leave immense deposits in the geological record, has always been thus.

If you wish to believe circumstantially that humans cause climate change, no one can stop you, but you can't prove it.

DC

16
 Frank R. 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

> If you wish to believe circumstantially that humans cause climate change, no one can stop you, but you can't prove it.

Where is the forum option for "block the idiots" when one needs it? Sincerely, your trolling is getting quite tiring...

2
In reply to colinakmc:

> My horizons are limited to an occasional trip to the alps, and short raids in Scotland. I’d prefer to go to Switzerland by train but the price is horrendous from Glasgow. <

I don't know any climbers who consider coaches. Almost certainly cheaper than train (although often at least double the time if connections are included).  I was disappointed when the overnight London-Glasgow sleeper bus was discontinued. Perhaps for intracontinental travel that is the future.

 SenzuBean 15 Dec 2019
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

> You are cherry picking. Don't forget Krakatoa and the nine nuclear winters after 1883, then Pinatubo, many other big Alaskan and eruptions elsewhere dumping dust and ash into the atmosphere.

Says the man with a handful of cherries!

A constant large amount of smog, coal, burnt forests, for hundreds of years in a small part of Europe - versus eruptions on the other side of the planet (remind me, how many of these eruptions caused 'pea soupers' in European cities?).

Why don't you - just for a moment, consider if you're wrong - what then? Maybe you should think about who benefits from the status quo, where fossil fuels are burnt at hundreds of thousands of times the replacement rate (which you are defending), versus one where we curtail emissions and we use the sun for energy.

1
 flash635 16 Dec 2019
In reply to ebdon:

Regarding sea level, the link between alpine glacier retreat and sea level rise is explicitly stated in the article and in the article's linked to pages.  The article links the two (correctly) but I was expanding on the wider observation about sea level changes - they also go back to the 1860s, the onset of the modern warming period and alpine glacier retreat.

 flash635 16 Dec 2019
In reply to Frank R.:

Extraordinary!  After "block the idiots" what next?  Book burning, show trials?

Walk down that path and eventually it leads to tyranny.  Shutting down arguments you don't like is what climate catastrophists have been doing for decades - that's why the phrase "the science is settled" is used.  Its code for "I don't want to listen".

Listening to the unsubstantiated claims of XR is quite tiring.  But I have no intention of calling for them to be banned.  The way to reach truth in anything is to shine a bright light on it and discuss it in public.

Feel free to show the errors in what has been counter-posted here.  I am sorry you appear to find it uncomfortable to discuss the fact that alpine glacier retreat started back in the 1860s, way before anthropogenic effects could have made any contribution.  But the statement is true and is supported by a thick pile of scientific papers based on field research and observation NOT computer models. 

Perhaps the following will make you more uncomfortable.  During the Roman Warm Period it is almost certain that there was less ice in the alps than today.  Much less.  The ice expanded again in the dark ages, retreated again in the Medieval Warm period and then expanded again during the Little Ice Age (LIA).  At the peak of the LIA the Mer de Glace had turned the corner and was advancing down the main Chamonix Valley, threatening villages and farmland in the process.

2
 flash635 16 Dec 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

You mention smog etc for hundreds of years.  The idea that the whole of modern temperature change since 1860 is controlled just by man through aerosols, soot and CO2 is frankly laughable.  Climate models include all that data, but despite that they completely fail to model the warming cycle at the start of the 20th Century.  The CO2 effect is physically too small to have caused it, yet the rate of warming was comparable to the period post-1980 to today (when there is much less soot emitted following clean air acts).  That's an example from just the last 100 years or so of comparable rates of warming which don't correspond to the XR catastrophe meme.  Demonstration of this statement at WoodForTrees:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/trend

To fit that into a model comprised entirely of man-made effects from  of soot, aerosols and CO2 requires a lot of special pleading, counter balancing of effects at just the right times and NO natural variations whatsoever (other than volcanos) for 170 years. Its also contrary to the IPCC CMIP5 climate model findings.

As for who the fossil fuels are being burnt for the benefit of?  The answer is you, and all the people who want to keep warm in winter, to cook on a clean source of energy and not die young because of indoor pollution like millions every year in the third world who do not have access to cheap base load electricity and who will continue to be deprived of that access if UN climate policies are enacted.

And while we're considering ethics - ask what you are going to do in the climbing world without the marvellous safety benefits modern petro-chemical technology has brought to you.  Perhaps you would like to give up modern ropes and dyneema and go back to hemp?  Maybe jettison your plastic boots, Goretex and modern synthetic fabrics and go back to cotton and wool?

When I summited Mont Blanc in 1981 I soled it (no rope). I was wearing leather boots, woollen socks and trousers, cotton shirts.  Camping in the valley was in an orange cotton Vango Force 10 tent.   I travelled to the Alps by train.  To get to the start of the walk up to the hut, I took the bus from Chamonix.  So did I do it more ethically than those climbing it today?

Post edited at 10:11
1
 Frank R. 16 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

> Extraordinary!  After "block the idiots" what next?  Book burning, show trials?

On a rant here? Calm down, nobody is calling for censorship or book burning. I am just tired of reading your tirades and frankly, would prefer to have posts such as yours simply hidden for me, since debating with trolls and people like you who deny decades of climate science is quite pointless, just like debating with flat-earthers. That's what the "block" function is for, in case you haven't been on any internet forums in the last decade. It's just your personal filter.

Post edited at 14:02
4
 flash635 16 Dec 2019
In reply to Frank R.:

"people like you who deny decades of climate science is quite pointless"

If you could show even one example from my posts here on the published literature of alpine glaciers where I have "denied decades of climate science" you might have a point.  I look forward to seeing you quote an example.

 kathrync 16 Dec 2019
In reply to cb294:

> If you seriously think that the important bit about scientific conferences is the presentations you have no clue. For that, you can read the publications. No get back under your bridge.

> CB

I wouldn't have phrased it like that but I agree with the sentiment. The productive parts of scientific conferences are the parts when someone you have never come across before approaches you with an interesting alternative perspective on your work, or when a group of you are bantering over a beer or two and you suddenly find that you have a grant proposal in the making.  Many conferences are now open to online delegates, and I have called into conference sessions remotely, but if you are remote and online you miss out on those informal interactions which are really the main point of attending conferences. 

In my case, travel for conferences is a very small minority of my work travel.  The majority is to teach workshops in low or middle income countries. We do teach many online workshops (I probably do 3 online to every one that I travel to), but some are just not possible to do that way for either technical or bandwidth reasons - online workshops where the participants are in Malawi do not work well - we tried! 

I fly far more than I would like, but I do think hard about whether or not I really need to fly every time I do so.  As a project, we fly far less than we used to (at one time, we would fly 30 attendees from Africa to the US for a workshop - now we send 4 staff to Africa instead, and we are more careful about sending people to local conferences where that is appropriate), and we do things online where we can.  I also have a personal policy of only taking holidays abroad when I am flying for work anyway - otherwise I holiday locally or use other forms of transport to get into Europe.

Roadrunner6 16 Dec 2019

In reply to PaulScramble:

> We can't change the temperature of the planet. The planet heats up and cools down naturally, in cycles. If we were heading for an ice age, which would take millenia to manifest anyway, I still wouldn't take seriously loony lefties dressing as bumble bees and gluing themselves to the LibDems' electric bus, while scaring everyone about a climate 'emergency'. The public are already tired of these socialist clowns.

wow.. of course you can. Greenhouse Gas effect.

1
 SenzuBean 16 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

> You mention smog etc for hundreds of years.  The idea that the whole of modern temperature change since 1860 is controlled just by man through aerosols, soot and CO2 is frankly laughable. 

That's not what I said at all - you should read what I wrote again since it has clearly eluded you. I was discussing the melting of European glaciers. My criticism that you do not understand models still stands as well.
If you find science so funny, then here's something you can laugh at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:2017_Global_warming_attribution_-_based_on_NCA4_Fig_3.3.png

> As for who the fossil fuels are being burnt for the benefit of?  The answer is you, and all the people who want to keep warm in winter, to cook on a clean source of energy and not die young because of indoor pollution like millions every year in the third world who do not have access to cheap base load electricity and who will continue to be deprived of that access if UN climate policies are enacted.

Third world mostly uses these fuels for cooking and lighting, not heating. There are ample technologies available that remove the need for these basic fuels.
In the Western world, where you live, this strawman argument also holds no water - we are able to use alternatives as well.

> And while we're considering ethics - ask what you are going to do in the climbing world without the marvellous safety benefits modern petro-chemical technology has brought to you.  Perhaps you would like to give up modern ropes and dyneema and go back to hemp?

Another bollocks strawman. Yawn.

> When I summited Mont Blanc in 1981 I soled it (no rope). I was wearing leather boots, woollen socks and trousers, cotton shirts.  Camping in the valley was in an orange cotton Vango Force 10 tent.   I travelled to the Alps by train.  To get to the start of the walk up to the hut, I took the bus from Chamonix.  So did I do it more ethically than those climbing it today?

That's great, it sounds like you did - not sure why you've become so curmudgeonly about efforts to protect an experience you had, for young people now and into the future.

Post edited at 19:35
2
 wbo2 16 Dec 2019

In reply to PaulScramble:nasty surprise coming your way - these things dont take millennia to manifest themselves - they happen fast and have nasty effects when they do.

But you'll be ok as you're not a real person 

2
 birdie num num 17 Dec 2019
In reply to UKC Articles:

Rising above the smog of claim and counter claim, there is some good news....Offshore wind power development in the Irish Sea over the last decade has pushed the total electricity generation in the U.K. to almost 30% from renewables. This is set to continue with further development off the Yorkshire coast accounting for another estimated 5%. And there will be more beyond that. Probably Morcambe Bay. It shouldn’t cancel out individual responsibility however. I, for one cannot understand why folk feel the need to go to Sainsbury’s in their four wheel drive tractors, that they can’t even park. In fact I don’t understand why these vehicles are even a thing any more. But eventually they will be phased out and become history. Rome wasn’t built in a day.

1
 summo 17 Dec 2019
In reply to birdie num num:

Suvs just need hitting with a road tax that's so high you have to read it again to believe it. That and a threat to increase it further, so manufacturers don't consider developing anymore. 

Post edited at 07:58
2
 flash635 17 Dec 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

Thank you for your points, I can understand your viewpoint although I don't necessarily agree with all of it.

Regarding understanding models, nothing I can say in a thread here is likely to convince you whether I really understand this stuff or have any credentials or knowledge in this area.  So you will need to take it on faith that I do actually know something about the topic.  Your link to the graph shows you have done background work, thank you for that as I understand your position and reasoning quite clearly from that.

I am engaging in debate with you on the basis that the position you hold on the subject of climate models is in good faith.  On a thread like this it can only work if you accept that I hold a counter-position to you but I also hold that view in good faith.

Regarding the image you linked to showing the NCA4 attribution graph, my two questions to you are:

1. Do you think that's a climate model input or a climate output?

2. Do you think if you sum those components together it would be a good match to the actual temperature curve (the upper panel) in the period prior to the 1950s?

If you choose to respond to those questions I will explain my view of climate models and why the predictions made from them should be treated with a lot more circumspection.

1
 Michael Gordon 17 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

What in your view is a likely percentage of human influence in recent climate warming? 

 SenzuBean 17 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

We will never, ever, be 100% certain about the course of the future climate - and if that is your requirement for action, you will never act.
A more pragmatic viewpoint is that our actions should be weighted by the risk and the confidence of that risk. The risk is extremely high, the confidence is also extremely high (but not certainty) - there's nothing more that really needs to be said.

The greenhouse effect is a positive feedback loop. We expect the behaviour of a positive feedback loop (left unchecked by stronger negative feedback loops) to be very weak in its early stages, then approximately linear for a short time, before violent non-linear growth. Thus when you expect correlation far in the past, it shows you perhaps do not understand that we don't expect strong correlation (with CO2) to be there anyway - instead we are worried for the violent non-linear growth, which by the time it has started, is impossible to control.

2
 Michael Gordon 17 Dec 2019

In reply to David Slater:

David, I was trying to ask him a question since he seemed to be well informed if, yes, on a different 'side' of the argument and generally seemed happy to debate with others regardless of point of view. It seems a fair and important question to ask, considering the discussion has centred around the varying interpretations of natural vs human-induced effect. So rather than assuming I have some sort of agenda and asking me questions which I can't answer, perhaps you'll let him answer my question.

 Michael Gordon 17 Dec 2019

In reply to David Slater:

> I don;t think anyone quoted the findings that only 0.3% of actual "scientists" agree that warming is man made, not 97%? Consensus is a political tool not a scientific one:

It depends which question you ask, doesn't it. Nearly every scientist agrees that humans are having an effect on world temperatures; it is the degree of which that is in doubt. Your link actually says that 0.3% agree that MOST warming is anthropogenic. Let's assume that "most" means >50%. So to what degree are we having an effect?

In the Cook et al paper which your link refers to, it states that only 0.7% reject human-induced global warming, a "vanishingly small proportion of the published research".

1
 Michael Gordon 17 Dec 2019

In reply to David Slater:

I don't have access to read your article in full. What percentage do they give for those who reject a human-induced effect outright (as opposed to just MOST effect)?

Re scientists, you've obviously given this a lot more thought than me. What do you define as a scientist?

 Michael Gordon 17 Dec 2019

In reply to David Slater:

So we're going into conspiracy theory territory?

 Michael Gordon 17 Dec 2019

In reply to David Slater:

"But it is obvious that we are being propagandised to believe a whole raft of nonsense by our masters who have manipulated to believe in any old religion that makes them profit."

OK, that sounded like conspiracy theory territory. I'm unclear as to why it isn't.

 Michael Gordon 17 Dec 2019

In reply to David Slater:

> 99.7%. 

Say that humans are having NO effect?! What about those who say it has some effect, but less than 50%? Sorry, without seeing the paper there's no way I can believe that... 

"I'm going off old memory here (to caveat this), but the Cook paper started out with those papers that agreed strongly with, moderately with and also didn;t sate, that human-induced climate warming is CO2 related.  They eliminated many papers for not concluding an opinion even though those papers suggested in the main that the science is not final."  

And they also included those who rejected the proposition that humans are having an effect (0.7%)

 SenzuBean 18 Dec 2019

In reply to David Slater:

> In nature, positive feedback loops ARE countered by negative ones,  That;s what makes our planet and its ecosystems so amazing.  The "precautionary principle" is good.  We should halt things we don't know about.  Sadly, politics and Corporatism (aka Fascism) put money before precaution in so many other ways.  Should we have the untested 5G? What about Genetically Modified food?  This can go on forever.  But it is obvious that we are being propagandised to believe a whole raft of nonsense by our masters who have manipulated to believe in any old religion that makes them profit.

Correct, but the presence of the negative feedback loops may not protect life as we know it. See Great Oxidation event and other 'Medean events': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medea_hypothesis .
Also note that we are doing our absolute best to destroy these very living negative feedback loops, see ocean acidification, oceanic temperature rise (the top 15cm of seawater rising by 0.1 degrees celsius is an extremely, extremely large amount of energy added to the climate system), see pollinator disappearance, see acid rain. Yes untested 5G is a risk, but it's vastly, vastly less concern than the damage we risk to all life - it has very little 'momentum', we can turn off the transmitters at a moment's notice.

 Andy Moles 18 Dec 2019

In reply to David Slater:

Christ man, where to start?

You've come in to this conversation swinging, casting broad aspersions on climate scientists, calling the majority of forum users 'sheeple', and suggesting that most people don't even know the difference between weather and climate. You then go on to demand a complex set of CO2 % estimates and tangential ethical quandaries as a baseline to further debate, and assume that the reason you're getting dislikes is that the sheeple can't handle the truth?

Tell us more, o freethinking sage.

I can't access the full article that claims only 0.3% scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change, but about two seconds on Google gives me this, by a retired oil industry executive (hardly a neutral): https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/#7a2cb7c71157 which estimates 'consensus', with all the caveats, at over 80%.

 flash635 18 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Your question was: “What in your view is a likely percentage of human influence in recent climate warming?”

Thank you for asking that.  Definitely the best question, and deserves to win the thread!

I have taken time to respond because it is not straightforward to answer.   I also note a lot of traffic since then.  My answer will likely be misconstrued and the climate catastrophists will grab the high end of the range.  The high end I propose is, I believe, still relatively benign.

This is a long post, but without explanation it will simply be dismissed out of hand.

The IPCC AR5 is rather vague itself on this point.  Its statement in the Summary for Policymakers is this:

“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.”

Points to note: (a) they only attribute anthropogenic global warming (AGW) post 1950s and (b) they propose the contribution is > 50%.

The statement implies an upper bound of 100%.  I think that is nonsense and there are a number of reasons to discredit that including (a) linear sea level rise since 1860 (b) warming cycle prior to 1950s has similar slope to post-1980s warming:

http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1980/trend

(c) climate models do not include periodic features of the climate such as NAO/AMO or El Nino and (d) climate models fail to predict both the magnitude and timing of pre-1950s warming cycle.

My estimate of the human contribution post-1980s would be in the range 0 – 30%.  I think it very unlikely the upper bound can go above 30% and its potentially much, much lower.  The lower bound would imply negative feedbacks – possible, but unlikely.  There are so many unknowns that a best estimate is very difficult.

Technical Justification:

1. Climate Models Run Hot

The entirety of evidence for AGW is based on computer models.  Computer models are not evidence and they are certainly not “experiments” as climate scientists have been claiming.

Comparing climate models to modern, reliable satellite data, the actual temps are running down at the lower limit of the climate model range.  Without the (natural) El Nino in 2016 the satellite temps would be outside the model 95% confidence interval (CI):

https://i1.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Global-LT-scaled.jpg

Examining the 102 CMIP5 climate models for the temperature trend and comparing them to satellite temps shows the following:

https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Global-LT-ranking-scaled.jpg

The key points are (a) the satellite trends (RSS and UAH) are at or below the model 95% CI and (b) the model trend is about 0.29 degC/decade versus about 0.13 degC/decade for UAH satellites.  Ie the models have a trend 2x that observed.  That’s a fail in my book.  Note the value: 2x.

2. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (ECS) Estimates

ECS is the sensitivity to forcing.  In the climate models this is largely CO2 (not solely, but lets keep it simple here).  The theoretical warming for CO2 doubling in the absence of feedbacks is 3.71 W/m^2 x 0.31 (Planck sensitivity) = 1.15 degC/W/m^2. This assumes feedbacks are neutral ie = 1.  Positive feedbacks would multiply it up, negative feedbacks down.  The basic 1.15 value is generally non-controversial.  The controversial part is the assumed 2.81 x water vapour multiplier (positive feedback) in the IPCC climate models.

IPCC history of ECS estimates (values in square brackets are uncertainty range):

IPCC 1990 3.0 [1.5, 4.5]

IPCC 2007 3.3 [2.0, 4.5]

IPCC 2013 ?.? [1.5, 4.5] (Latest AR5 report).

The ?.? are there because in AR5 they would not state a central value.  I kid you not.  They left it blank.  So after 23 years of climate research they widened the error bars back to what they thought in 1990 but left the central estimate blank.  So much for progress and the "science is settled".

Various people have reverse-engineered the current CMIP5 ECS estimate, its thought to be 2.2 (which might explain why they didn’t report it as its significantly lower than previous reports).  As noted above, those models are still running 2x too hot as compared to satellites.  But there is a further problem – model outputs are scaled by about 0.7x to match current temps, so the mismatch may be even worse than implied. (As an aside, future catastrophic predictions from IPCC DO NOT include the reducing factor of 0.7x they use to match current temps – go figure that one).

Evidence of the scaling factors etc can be found in the very long but excellent APS transcript:

https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

Based on the comparison of models to satellite temps (by point 1 above) it is likely that ECS is actually at or even below the current lower bound claimed by the IPCC.

3. Observational Estimates of ECS

As better observational datasets and particularly satellite data becomes available, estimates of ECS based on actual observations have been coming steadily down.  There is a graph showing this change at:

https://cliscep.com/2016/05/12/new-paper-on-climate-sensitivity-supports-low-%E2%89%881c-estimates/

In my opinion the scientist to trust in this area is Nic Lewis.  His estimates are well below 2, some other author’s papers as low as 1. 

So there is direct observational evidence that ECS is at or below the IPCC lower bound and possibly even as low as no feedbacks.

4. Clouds

Climate models fail on many features of the natural climate system – they don’t model the LIA, they don’t model the cycles such as the alpine glacier advance/retreat and sea level oscillations since 1860 which have a quasi-period of about 60 years.  They miss the warming pre-1950s and they can’t model El Nino’s.  That's just a few examples.

But the area where they completely fail are clouds and clouds really matter.  A recent paper on error propagation in climate models shows very clearly that the measurable annual error in forcing due to clouds in climate models is 114x larger than the annual CO2 forcing signal.  That means that in their current state climate models are incapable of detecting a CO2 signal and without an at least 2 orders of magnitude improvement in their ability to model clouds any conclusion drawn from them is basically wrong.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

If you read this far and followed the links - thank you!

Post edited at 10:25
2
 wbo2 18 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

Can you explain this.

ECS is the sensitivity to forcing.  In the climate models this is largely CO2 (not solely, but lets keep it simple here).  The theoretical warming for CO2 doubling in the absence of feedbacks is 3.71 W/m^2 x 0.31 (Planck sensitivity) = 1.15 degC/W/m^2. This assumes feedbacks are neutral ie = 1.  Positive feedbacks would multiply it up, negative feedbacks down.  The basic 1.15 value is generally non-controversial.  The controversial part is the assumed 2.81 x water vapour multiplier (positive feedback) in the IPCC climate models.

 flash635 18 Dec 2019
In reply to wbo2:

Thanks for your question  I'll try and make it clearer by expanding on what I wrote.

Theoretical physics ideas suggest that a doubling of CO2 concentration in a gas mixture would cause 3.7 Watts/metre^2 of extra heat flow to be retained.  To convert that to a temperature change you multiply by a well known physical constant, the Planck sensitivity.  The Planck value is 0.31 so the temperature effect of doubling of CO2 is thought to be 3.7 x 0.31 = 1.15 degrees Celsius (or Kelvin) increase for a doubling of CO2.

That's not controversial (although there are some physicists who think the value may be even lower, as low as 0.6).

A climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling of 1.15 degC would be very benign and trivial.  It would be much less than what humans have been adapting to for millennia.

The controversial part of global warming is the bit that the climate models rely on to get the catastrophic warming argument.  They suggest that the effect of doubling CO2 would be multiplied by a very large positive feedback caused by water vapour.  The water vapour feedback multiplier is about 2.8, so the climate models have a temperature response to doubling of CO2 of 3.7 x 0.31 x 2.8 = 3.2 degrees warming for a doubling of CO2 (or thereabouts - models vary).

The water vapour feedback multiplier is not proven.  Without it, there can be no catastrophic warming.  A further point, as I understand it, climate models assume constant Relative Humidity.  If that condition is not met in the real world (it almost certainly isn't) then that would be another argument as to why the water vapour multiplier is not actually correct.

Finally, I think natural systems with strong positive feedbacks are unlikely as they would be either unstable (runaway feedbacks) or couldn't switch between states eg ice ages and interglacials.  Remember that in the geological record CO2 levels have been 10x - 20x the levels today without anything like the level of warming implied by climate models being observed and without runaway warming.  Another problem with the argument for CO2 causing large positive feedback multipliers is that at both short and long timescales CO2 changes appear to lag temperature changes.  That puts cause and effect the wrong way round.  In general in the paleo record and the modern (monthly) record CO2 increases because temperature increases, not the other way round.  This is because (a) warm liquids (ie the oceans) cannot hold as much dissolved gas as cold liquids and (b) is evident in biosphere activity (visible as systematic annual variation in the modern CO2 measurements).

Hope that helps.

Post edited at 11:41
3
 flash635 18 Dec 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

You said:

"The greenhouse effect is a positive feedback loop."

Yes, in principal, but the magnitude of the feedback multiplier is what is controversial, not the principle.  The climate system as a a whole also contains powerful negative feedbacks eg clouds at lower levels.

You said:

"We expect the behaviour of a positive feedback loop (left unchecked by stronger negative feedback loops) to be very weak in its early stages, then approximately linear for a short time, before violent non-linear growth."

Feedback loops are generally characterised by multipliers.  The multiplier is a constant in climate models.  Paleo cliimate data from geology when CO2 was 10x to 20x levels today suggests the idea of a "violent non-linear growth" would have precluded any habitable climate today from runaway effects long ago.  Clearly didn't happen.

You said:

"Thus when you expect correlation far in the past, it shows you perhaps do not understand that we don't expect strong correlation (with CO2) to be there anyway"

That would imply the laws of physics have changed over time.  That's just silly.  In the past geological record CO2 has been 10x to 20x higher than today without catastrophic runaway warming.

2
In reply to flash635:

Indeed, ice ages have started at times of high CO2 and have ended at times of low CO2.

DC

1
 Michael Gordon 18 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

Thanks for taking the time to respond here, very interesting. "In the past geological record CO2 has been 10x to 20x higher than today without catastrophic runaway warming." I admit that this point is hard to reconcile.

From what you've said above it would appear that CO2 influences temperature and temperature influences CO2, but the latter is the stronger relationship. 

Presumably the positive feedback loop of Arctic warming coupled with the albedo effect is unlikely to have a significant effect on global temperatures?  

 flash635 18 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

Tony Heller has a lot to say on arctic ice melt in the 1920s and 1930s.  Lots of USA newspaper reports documenting it happening.  They talked about the NW Passage being ice free etc.  That coincides with the warming period that ended at the start of the 1950s.  Climate models fail on it, which is why IPCC only asserts "human fingerprint" post-1950s, not full century.  It was also a period of alpine glacial retreat, follow by the mini-advance in the 1950s - 1980 period.

Note that arctic ice satellite measurement start around 1976 (most people claim 1979) ie just after the colder period and right at the start of warming.  We don't have proper data before that.  Always watch out when claims of "unpredented" or "accelerating" are made if they only start at the 1950s (the UK MetOffice is quite prone to this sometimes, although usually they go back to 1910 for "since records began" - ignoring the fact they have daily temperature and precipitation records in Central England back to 1772!).

If you check out one of the head post articles' links to the glacier length database you can see what I am talking about in action:

https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/glaciers-2/assessment?utm_content=link4&utm_campaign=articles_id_12453&utm_medium=articles_post&utm_source=ukclimbing

Look at the first dramatic chart with "unprecedented" acceleration with new eyes and you will perhaps notice two things:

1. All the glaciers on the chart seem to be quite small and obscure.  Where is the Mer de Glace? The Bossons?

2. The chart starts in 1945.  What about the period 1860 - 1945?  Lots of published literature on that period (and even earlier).

So the graph is on the downswing/upswing of a half cycle period of about 60-70 years.  Sure, there is melt in the earlier half (remember - long term trend from 1860s) but note also that glaciers in Norway appear to be growing?  How does that fit the narrative?  IF you google "Norway warming twice as fast" see what you get! (As an aside, you can google pretty much anywhere in the world with the words "Anywhere warming twice as fast" and get a confirmation - its become a sceptic joke really.  Try it - its quite funny!).

Always watch the pea under the thimble.  Graphs and presentations are like advertising - so treat them the same way.  Do your own due diligence.  If you are shown truncated views and selected samples always ask yourself what the rest of the data would show if only you could see it.

That was my original objection to this article/thread - context is everything.  Nature works on many timescales and sometimes very dramatically - check out the Younger Dryas event as we came out of the ice age and into the Holocene.  During Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles (Bond cycles in the Holocene) temps can fluctuate by many degrees in just decades.  Quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

"For example, the sudden warming episode that occurred approximately 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cool period, increased temperatures by about 5–7 °C (9–12.6 °F). This increase took place over roughly 30–40 years, peaking by as much as 8 °C (14.4 °F) over 40 years."

Imagine if that took place right now - climate hysteria would go way past 11!

Much of the Holocene was warmer than today and much of the Alps could have been ice-free for up to half of the last 8,000 years or so.

Post edited at 17:12
1
In reply to flash635:

> "For example, the sudden warming episode that occurred approximately 11,500 years ago, marking the end of the Younger Dryas cool period, increased temperatures by about 5–7 °C (9–12.6 °F). This increase took place over roughly 30–40 years, peaking by as much as 8 °C (14.4 °F) over 40 years."

> Imagine if that took place right now - climate hysteria would go way past 11!

> Much of the Holocene was warmer than today and much of the Alps could have been ice-free for up to half of the last 8,000 years or so.

That's exactly the point I made earlier about the Mendip cave research - the research shows very rapid changes within 40 year time spans and possibly ten years.

DC

1
 Michael Gordon 18 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

OK thanks

 SenzuBean 18 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

> Yes, in principal, but the magnitude of the feedback multiplier is what is controversial, not the principle.  The climate system as a a whole also contains powerful negative feedbacks eg clouds at lower levels.

The effect of clouds as a net negative feedback loop is not proven at all - I suspect you knew this.

> Feedback loops are generally characterised by multipliers.  The multiplier is a constant in climate models.  Paleo cliimate data from geology when CO2 was 10x to 20x levels today suggests the idea of a "violent non-linear growth" would have precluded any habitable climate today from runaway effects long ago.  Clearly didn't happen.

You have conveniently forgotten that other gases such as methane (more than twice historical levels) and N2O (running at twice the historical concentration at the moment), and albedo effects (too complex to reduce), play a crucial role. - you seem absolutely fixated on CO2 for some reason... It doesn't make sense to speak of a multiplier in a climate model...
Up to 96% of species went extinct at these 'runaway' events? If that's not violent, then nothing is.

This will be my last reply to you. It's clear that (even if you are acting in good faith) - you are not interested in achieving good outcomes.

3
 Michael Gordon 19 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

> at both short and long timescales CO2 changes appear to lag temperature changes.  That puts cause and effect the wrong way round.  In general in the paleo record and the modern (monthly) record CO2 increases because temperature increases, not the other way round.  >

Can you link me evidence-based graphs showing this?

 flash635 19 Dec 2019
In reply to SenzuBean:

In response to your statement "The effect of clouds as a net negative feedback loop is not proven at all - I suspect you knew this"

You should perhaps re-read what I said.  Words mean things, and precision in science is very important.  The sentence you are responding to says "The climate system as a whole also contains powerful negative feedbacks eg clouds at lower levels."

Clouds at high levels have a net warming effect (strictly, they slow cooling if we are being accurate).  Clouds at low levels are a powerful negative feedback.  You try that experiment for yourself in a field on a sunny, summer afternoon where clouds are starting to build. Wait for one to pass over and see if you think you feel colder or not.

Regarding other GHGs, yes of course there are others.  However two points to make here - firstly I am not obsessed with CO2, its the IPCC, UN, XR and people worried about flying and their carbon footprint who are obsessed with CO2. 

Secondly, in climate models all the Greenhouse gases you mention are actually lumped together, they are not treated separately.  They are in a group of forcings labelled WMGHG which stands for "well-mixed greenhouse gases".  As I mentioned in a post up thread way back, I said CO2 to keep it simple, but there are other gases.  The CMIP5 modelling does not treat them separately except for one - Ozone.  O3 gets its own special warming curve.  Ironic, eh?

You can see a graph showing the assumed forcings with time here at the official IPCC report site:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/anthropogenic-and-natural-radiative-forcing/

You need to click on the graphic for Figure 8.18.  Its not the best representation.  The actual forcings used in models vary with time.  They are reported in CMIP5 GISS-E2 Global Radiative Forcings (Fi) Miller et al (2014) (Updated).  They forcings go to 2011 (the cut-off date for IPCC AR5 reporting, post-2011 they are scenarios.  to address you other claims about albedo etc I'll go through the actual forcings used, explain them and give the average value of the forcing for the last 10 years (which is the period 2002-2011 for IPCC AR5).  I have rounded to two decimal places

Anthropogenic Factors

1. WMGHG - well mixed greenhouse gases. +3.31 W/m^2

2. Ozone +0.45 W/m^2

3. TropAerDir - Direct effects of tropical aerosols -0.19 W/m^2

4. TropAerInd - Indirect effects of tropical aerosols -0.70 W/m^2

5 SnowAlb - Snow albedo which includes black carbon +0.05 W/m^2

6. Land Use -0.21 W/m^2

Note that you complained about albedo.  Its virtually irrelevant.  Of the total anthropogenic warming factors in IPCC it accounts for 1.3%.  The reason is snow is mainly at high latitudes. (eg arctic), so there is little significant solar insolation for it to effect.  Locally eg the alps it may be a factor, not for global temps.

Natural Factors

Orbital - Ie Milankovich cycles - 0.00 W/m^2

StratAer - Stratigraphic aerosols from volcanos +0.02 W/m^2 (but note actually a cooling, just no significant volcanoes in last 10 years.  Average of entire 1850 - 2011 this would be -0.27 W/m^2)

Solar - +0.03 W/m^2

You can basically see from the above that IPCC thinks there is nothing driving climate except man (effectively natural factors are zero apart from occasional volcanic coolings).  But then there mission statement is to find anthropogenic causes of global warming, not all causes.

You also said this "It doesn't make sense to speak of a multiplier in a climate model..."

That's exactly what climate models do.  Its pathetic really, but you can actually reconstruct the output of a climate model from the input forcings by simple linear regression.  I have done it in a spreadsheet, and the paper by P Frank on cloud errors demonstrates it too:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/feart.2019.00223/full

In fact its worse than that - you can simply sum all the anthropogenic forcings and hey presto, with a little linear regression the input = output.

Sad you are not going to debate anymore.  On a passing note though, I see that Nic Lewis paper with Judith Curry (Lewis and Curry 2018) appears to be sound.  It uses actual observational data in the real world to estimate climate sensitivity.  you can read about here:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/12/18/comment-by-cowtan-jacobs-on-lewis-curry-2018-and-reply-part-1/

The results table from the peer-reviewed paper is here:

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2019/12/lewis_reply-to-comment-on-lc18_post1_tbl1.png

You will see in the bottom row what I said about IPCC - no central estimate.  But check out the new ECS figures.  I calculate the average value from the test windows is

The take home results are that the best estimate of ECS is 1.54 [1.03, 2.79] ( I have averaged the 95% confidence bounds which is not strictly correct).  So as I said earlier - the real world is bumping along at the bottom of the IPCC range and is actually below what they claimed in 2007.

Anyone who wants to know what I think controls the climate of the planet.  Its simple, its the elephant in the room.  Its the most significant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere.  It has a specific heat capacity 1,000x that of the same volume of air, it makes up 70% of the surface of the planet, it has an amazing property that its solid state is less dense than its liquid state, it can transition between all 3 states on earth and has very high latent heat in those transitions.  It forms clouds that warm and cool.  Every afternoon it limits the temperature in the tropics to about 36 degC (instead of the 80+ degC daytime surface temp that incoming solar insolation could generate unchecked).  It is a massive heat engine that transports heat from the tropics to be radiated into space at high latitudes.  It shapes the mountains and valleys through erosion and freeze-thaw.  It brings life.  It is a miracle molecule and its been pushed out of the limelight by an imposter.

Everyone guessed what the miracle molecule is yet?

2
 flash635 19 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

On the question of CO2 lags, Euan Mearns is a geologist who has some good blogs on it at Energy Matters.  The original paper is Petit et al 1999 which documents the Vostok ice core.  I (along with many others) have downloaded the data and tested the time lag with cross-correlation.  Its about 800 years the wrong way (ie CO2 lags temp).  Ironically its the curve Al Gore uses in An Inconvenient Truth. The reason he shows them one above the other in thick lines is because if you overlay them they actually negate his argument.  As I said earlier , presentation is everything.

Euan posted this on some more detailed analysis lag analysis at WUWT:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/27/vostok-and-the-8000-year-time-lag/

I am sure you can google your way to Euan Mearns' site.

On the short time stuff, there is a great graph generated from Woodfortrees online:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1979/mean:12/derivative/plot/uah/from:1959/scale:0.22/offset:0.14

The graph compares the derivative of CO2 to the satellite temps.  If the derivative of CO2 correlates with temp then the CO2 is lagging, not leading.  You can see the huge CO2 effects of the (natural) El Nino warmings in 1998, 2016 very clearly.

1
 flash635 19 Dec 2019

Here's a light-hearted look at climate scientists, fixated on one tiny control and unable to see the big picture:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/josh-knobs.jpg

You can find his humour at cartoonsbyjosh.co.uk

1
 George Allan 19 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

As I'm in no position to evaluate the science, I approach it from a very simple angle:

1. Almost no one denies that the planet is warming.

2. V. few now argue that this isn't a combination of natural fluctations plus human activity. Your anaylsis suggests that the latter's contribution is likely to be up to 30%. Again, I cannot comment on whether this is a widely accepted position or not.

3. The speed of change is now causing real problems in the here and now (including contributing to mortality in parts of the world). Weather events have always killed people/devasted communities but there seems to be a consensus that changes to the climate are increasing the number and severity of such events.

4. To reduce the problem for all species, we need to do two things - a) act to reduce the speed of warming by addressing our contribution (the bit we can control)  b) act to reduce the consequences. What we should do was the starting point of this thread.

A further point worth making- there is still plenty of fossil fuel under the ground but if we carry on using it, it will, at some point, run out. Given, this and its contribution to the warming of the planet, better to move quickly over to economies powered by renewable energy now.

I'm pretty sure that you will agree with this.

In reply to George Allan:

> 3. The speed of change is now causing real problems in the here and now (including contributing to mortality in parts of the world).

 but there seems to be a consensus that changes to the climate are increasing the number and severity of such events.

> 4. To reduce the problem for all species, we need to do two things - a) act to reduce the speed of warming by addressing our contribution (the bit we can control)  b) act to reduce the consequences. What we should do was the starting point of this thread.

> A further point worth making- there is still plenty of fossil fuel under the ground but if we carry on using it, it will, at some point, run out.

Given, this and its contribution to the warming of the planet, better to move quickly over to economies powered by renewable energy now.

George, these are concerned points BUT your assumptions have been invalidated many times by accurate published info:

1.  Speed of change naturally is immense, more than we can imagine - and demonstrated accurately with Quaternary research. Rapid change is natural, not unprecedented.

2. Climate and weather and environmental changes are NOT increasing in severity, take a look at Paul Homewood's forensic analyses of disaster patterns and weather patterns.

3. There is nothing humans can do to alter the climate. FACT.

4. Fossil fuels do not run out as they are controlled by price. Peak oil, peak coal, peak everything has been predicted for 50 years but nothing happens, oil is still cheaper than chips, it would be $1000 a barrel if it was going to run out. Someone once asked on this site where you can get herring and charcoal as they were "extinct". I can get them in town five minutes from here. If you don't bring price into the equation, all statements about "running out" are meaningless.

5. "Renewable energy" is NOT what it says on the tin. "Carbon-free" and "renewable" energy does not exist. Many so-called "renewables" have a massive carbon footprint (like nuclear) and it is fraudulent accounting that supports the illusion. The grid can not ecist based on "renewable energy". Even wind company executives admit that privately, and they wouldn't have a job without the subsidy.

We are all concerned, no one more than me, but this has to be based on verifiable science.

DC

7
 flash635 19 Dec 2019
In reply to George Allan:

You said :

"1. Almost no one denies that the planet is warming"

Agreed, it has been warming consistently since about 1860.

"2. V. few now argue that this isn't a combination of natural fluctations plus human activity. Your anaylsis suggests that the latter's contribution is likely to be up to 30%. Again, I cannot comment on whether this is a widely accepted position or not."

The IPCC, XR and most others claim it is only human, nothing else.  There are no significant natural forcings in the IPCC work other than volcanos (which are essentially random cooling events).  I don't think any rational person, knowing of the little ice age, the medieval warm period, the roman warm period and the fact that most of the Holocene period has been warmer than today can believe that there must be significant natural elements that are being completely ignored in climate models.

Regarding my 0 - 30% - no, its a minority report.  That puts me in same boat as Feynman when he identified the reason for the Challenger space shuttle disaster. 

"3. ...there seems to be a consensus that changes to the climate are increasing the number and severity of such events"

There is a consensus with the popular press, Green Party and XR that is accurate, but there is no evidence that the claims are true, in fact the complete opposite is the case.  Not even the IPCC AR5 science concluded they could link extreme weather disasters and climate change.  All indicators suggest business as usual.  Hyping weather disasters to sell newspapers is as old as the hills.  Linking it to climate change sells even more.  It is not supported by evidence.

In science, consensus is irrelevant.  As soon as anyone talks about consensus you should know they have moved to politics.

"4. To reduce the problem for all species, we need to do two things - a) act to reduce the speed of warming by addressing our contribution (the bit we can control)  b) act to reduce the consequences. What we should do was the starting point of this thread."

Er - no we can't.  Nothing man can do will control the weather or the climate.  Its hubris of the highest order.  As for agonising about carbon footprint and stopping flying, whatever you believe about climate change, it is simply virtue signalling.  If XR really want to make a difference they should be picketing every Chinese embassy in the world, because China is where CO2 growth is coming from.  To get it in perspective - if we sacrifice our entire economy on the altar of climate change and went Zero Carbon tomorrow it would take China less than a year to completely overwhelm our minuscule contribution just through their economic growth.  They are building coal fired power stations at the rate of about 1 a week.  Meanwhile XR is protesting at commuters on the DLR in Canning Town by trying to prevent them using electrified public transport or they are glueing themselves to the LibDem electric bus.

If you want to make a difference in the world you might start by helping the third world lift out of economic poverty by giving access to reliable, clean, gas-powered base load electricity (rather than coal, which is what China is helping them build right now).  And in Africa especially, drilling water wells to give clean water.  You would save far more lives.

"A further point worth making- there is still plenty of fossil fuel under the ground but if we carry on using it, it will, at some point, run out."

There is more gas than we can ever burn I suspect.  And the Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stones.

"Given, this and its contribution to the warming of the planet, better to move quickly over to economies powered by renewable energy now."

I am very happy to have renewable energy providing (a) it does it without subsidies (currently £9 billion a year in the UK, and rising), (b) it doesn't destroy the landscape visually, destroy wildlife and be an eyesore and (c) doesn't require invasive mining in places like the Congo to produce minerals such as Cobalt, using child labour, to support it.

I am pretty sure you won't agree with my points.

Post edited at 12:05
3
 George Allan 19 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

You're right, I don't (well certainly not all of them).

Your para on developing countries:

a) is touched on in a post I made on this topic a couple of days ago.

b) is rather presumptious as it assumes that I (and almost certainly others who have posted) don't take an interest in/get involved in such issues. I'm not going to expand on that from a personal perspective as it is irrelevant to the topic.

A final comment- oil, gas and nuclear are extremely heavily subsidised.

Over and out from me- if threads can meet dead ends, this one's meeting one.

Post edited at 17:43
 Michael Gordon 19 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

> The graph compares the derivative of CO2 to the satellite temps.  If the derivative of CO2 correlates with temp then the CO2 is lagging, not leading.  You can see the huge CO2 effects of the (natural) El Nino warmings in 1998, 2016 very clearly.

I'm trying to assess what is affecting what. To be honest it's not easy to tell as the lines are so similar, but on balance the green (temp) line seems to be following the red (CO2) one, e.g. in the 2016 spike? 

In reply to George Allan:

> A final comment- oil, gas and nuclear are extremely heavily subsidised.

George, if you think oil and gas are heavily subsidised, you haven't done the maths. The tax revenue they create is huge. Ask the question of individuals or corporate entities - net contributor or net receiver?

DC

6
In reply to vscott:

If you have skied in the Alps in the recent past you will see extensive snow and this year early snow:

https://www.courchevel.com/en/webcams

From a Lake District perspective, we had the coldest November for many years. I guess the Guardian would say it was the hottest year evva?

DC

Post edited at 23:42
5
 Andy Moles 20 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

> In science, consensus is irrelevant.  As soon as anyone talks about consensus you should know they have moved to politics.

That's an interesting statement.

Your view is clearly well informed, with a lot more knowledge to support it than most people reading this thread, including me.

However, it is hard to believe that the IPCC 'consensus' that human influences are likely to be a much more significant contributor to climate change has not considered some of the factors you cite. They don't seem inobvious.

Can you steelman that majority view, or do you believe it is simply ideological groupthink?

P.S. you earlier permitted up to 30% human influence, and then state that believing we can have any effect is 'hubris of the highest order' (followed by a similarly intransigent statement about virtue signalling). Are you feeling less charitable now?

Post edited at 05:01
 Michael Gordon 20 Dec 2019
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

> The tax revenue they create is huge. Ask the question of individuals or corporate entities - net contributor or net receiver?> 

This is not incompatible with being subsidised.  

1
 Michael Gordon 20 Dec 2019
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

>From a Lake District perspective, we had the coldest November for many years. I guess the Guardian would say it was the hottest year evva?> 

Again the two things are not incompatible. Enough with the overly simplistic reasoning! 

1
 flash635 20 Dec 2019
In reply to Michael Gordon:

"but on balance the green (temp) line seems to be following the red (CO2) one, e.g. in the 2016 spike? "

They are almost exactly on top of each other.  But the CO2 line show is the derivative (a mathematical transform applied), not the original.  If the derivative of CO2 aligns with temp, temp is leading.  Its a well known way of testing for leads/lags.

1
 flash635 20 Dec 2019
In reply to George Allan:

You said "is rather presumptious as it assumes that I (and almost certainly others who have posted) don't take an interest in/get involved in such issues."

That's fair comment.  My comment was intended as general, not personally directed (even though I accept on reflection it reads like that).  No offence intended and apologies if any was taken.

1
 flash635 20 Dec 2019
In reply to Andy Moles:

Thanks for your comments.  Picking up on some things you said:

"However, it is hard to believe that the IPCC 'consensus' that human influences are likely to be a much more significant contributor to climate change has not considered some of the factors you cite. They don't seem inobvious.

Can you steelman that majority view, or do you believe it is simply ideological groupthink?"

The IPCC was set up with a mission statement - to identify and quantify human causes of climate change.  It is a UN political grouping and does not undertake primary research, it simply collates.

Consequently, there is a lot of research funding available for researching human-caused climate change and its possible impacts.  This is now the dominant area of publishing in journals and there is good evidence that it is difficult for opposing views to get published ( I have seen this first hand).   There is little funding for researching natural change.

As I said already, consensus is irrelevant in science.  You can check out what Einstein said on that.  Feynman had a minority view on the reason for the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster that contradicted the NASA expert "consensus".  Feynman insisted on a "minority report" being included and he was proved right.

Wegener's theory of continental drift was proposed in 1912 but bitterly opposed by geoscientists right up until the 1950s (and even later).  Milankovitch Cycles Theory (proposed 1920s) was only really proved once Atlantic sea floor magnetic data become available decades later in the 1960s.

I think the problem with climate science is threefold: Funding, politics and groupthink.  Groupthink is quite normal in science, it takes a strong argument to break out of it (a recent eg cause of stomach ulcers in medicine).  But if the topic is not politicised and turned into government policies that could impact in the sums of billions of dollars being spent and overturning the entire Western way of life then Groupthink simply remains an irrelevant academic argument (except perhaps in medicine of course).

It is the politicisation and the funding linked to it that has caused the problem.  Caution has been thrown to the wind and the madness of crowds is taking over.  I think there are a lot of problems with climate science, the most fundamental being (a) the only "evidence" is really computer models and (b) the only time period where the climate models seem to work is post-1950s.  And even in the post-1950s time period they are predicting warming twice as fast as reality.  They fail in the warming prior to the 1950s and they completely fail in the Holocene period  (which is why the IPCC don't talk about that period at all).  See the graph linked here:

https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/figure-38.png

The climate model based on CO2 produces a temperature prediction in the Holocene (green line) that runs in the completely opposite sense to the actual temperature from ice cores (black line).  That can't be right.  The full article (and links to 2 previous primers) are here:

https://judithcurry.com/2017/04/30/nature-unbound-iii-holocene-climate-variability-part-a/

Hope that helps.

3
In reply to flash635:

> I think the problem with climate science is threefold: Funding, politics and groupthink. 

Agree flash - all you have to do in this debate is "follow the money" and everything is explained. Too much money mostly subsidy rides on this issue for it be anything other than political.

DC

3
 flash635 20 Dec 2019
In reply to Andy Moles:

You said "P.S. you earlier permitted up to 30% human influence, and then state that believing we can have any effect is 'hubris of the highest order' (followed by a similarly intransigent statement about virtue signalling). Are you feeling less charitable now?"

I gave a range of 0 - 30%.  If I am wrong it will be at the top end of that range ie WMGHG have some effect.  But doing anything about it?  I think it unlikely.  Even if you did try it would be immensely expensive and would take so long to happen that you might as well just adapt (which is what humans have been doing successfully for millennia).  I also think that when the general public realises how much it will cost them, no government will ever survive attempting to implement the policies.  You can see some evidence for that in the Gilets Jaunes in France, the Chile riots (which moved the COP25 conference to Madrid) and the recent mass protests by farmers blockading with tractors in Netherlands and Germany.

The virtue signalling is about the politics.  If you believe that the climate scientists are correct then clearly you conclude that action is warranted.  But the reality is shutting down the UK economy won't make any difference to CO2 in the real world because of growth from China (and India).  Whatever we do in the UK is largely irrelevant to the future CO2 increase.  XR Supporters clearly believe there is a problem.  If you really want to "make a difference" you  should be picketing Chinese embassies (and maybe India), not standing on top of electrified public transport on the DLR.  Its a PR Stunt and its a massive own goal as far as I can see - witness the public reaction.  If XR focussed on China I might give them some credence that at least they were consistent and pointing at the right target (commensurate with their beliefs - I would still disagree strongly with the premise of "climate emergency").

3
In reply to Andy Moles:

Not going to get drawn in (any further) but for anyone else following this thread and wondering about the arguments being put forwards this https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php is a useful resource.

1
 Andy Moles 20 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

> Hope that helps.

Not a lot I'm afraid. You haven't been able to offer more insight than my predicted groupthink/ideology explanation for majority climate science opinion, so you haven't 'steelmanned' the opposing view at all. The Einstein and Feynman analogies are strawmen - and rather complimentary to your own position, if I may say so - the fact that scientific consensus is not always correct does not prove it is never correct. 

Are so many 'experts' (for want of a better word) really so ignorant or willing to ignore the bigger picture of Holocene climate data? Again, I find that hard to believe (though I acknowledge that my incredulity is not itself evidence for anything). I would have thought that someone who's studied the field as much as you have could offer a pretty good counter-argument to yourself?

Post edited at 11:17
 flash635 20 Dec 2019
In reply to vscott:

As skepticalscience is a warming propaganda site, in the interest of balance I think it only appropriate to suggest some alternate points of view.  The sceptics main site is:

https://wattsupwiththat.com

An important dissection of mainly UK climate pronouncements by the ever forensic Paul Homewood:

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com

and for insights from a highly credentialed and published climate scientist I would suggest Judith Curry:

https://judithcurry.com

2
 flash635 20 Dec 2019
In reply to Andy Moles:

Thanks for your further comments - all fair points in general.  I don't think the Einstein and Feynman examples are strawmen, and I think your last part of the sentence confirms that:

"the fact that scientific consensus is not always correct does not prove it is never correct. "

Because the point is only that consensus is not evidence of truth.

I would never put myself in a group with Einstein or Feynman.  They are demi-gods, I am just an ordinary person.  They are just well know examples of the point I am trying to make

On the question of ignoring the Holocene - I can find no graph in the IPCC AR5 showing the Holocene like I showed upthread.  If any one can find it and show me, I would be keen to see it.  The Modelling paper of Liu et al (2014) shown in the Holocene diagram I linked to is post-IPCC AR5, but clearly shows that a climate model calibrated to WMGHG post-1950s is a total fail in the Holocene.

All I think is that something's seriously wrong with climate models: 

1. They only really work post-1950s, but even there they over-predict by a factor of 2x as compared to our best data ie satellites.

2. They don't work on the warming period 1910 - 1945.

3. They don't have enough human forcing to explain warming from 1860.

4. They don't explain the obvious quasi-periodic acceleration/deceleration observed in the sea level and temp data with a period of about 60-70 yrs, likely ocean related (and I think they are conflating this with their putative GHG warming post-1950s)

5. Observational estimates of ECS are at or below the IPCC lower bound (this would explain the 2x over-prediction post-1950s).

6. And they are clearly a fail when modelling the Holocene.

3
 George Allan 20 Dec 2019
In reply to flash635:

Thanks- apology accepted.

In reply to flash635:

What, in your opinion, is the cause of the current warming trend?

 Mike Stretford 10 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> You said :

> "1. Almost no one denies that the planet is warming"

> Agreed, it has been warming consistently since about 1860.

It hasn't

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11639-climate-myths-the-cooling-after-1940-shows-co2-does-not-cause-warming/

You are clearly approaching this topic from a political angle, your language gives that away.

Post edited at 11:44
1
 Michael Gordon 10 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I assume he meant 'generally' when he said "consistently" as he said quite a few times that there was a cooling period c1950-1980.

But that's a rather odd article from New Scientist, with the article itself being very short and at no point making the argument contained within the headline.

 Michael Gordon 10 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

About the point you made earlier about CO2 levels being 10-20x higher at times in the past, and the climate being cooler. Was this due to major volcanic eruptions?

 Mike Stretford 10 Jan 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> I assume he meant 'generally' when he said "consistently" as he said quite a few times that there was a cooling period c1950-1980.

I normally assume people mean what they write or say. He's wrong.

> But that's a rather odd article from New Scientist, with the article itself being very short and at no point making the argument contained within the headline.

It's a decent article, albeit from 2007. You seem to have missed the point, the title is the restating of a myth. It is short and obviously not definitive but it does mention several factors of interest. I mainly posted it for the graph, here's a more recent one.

https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/binaries/content/gallery/metofficegovuk/images/research/climate/global-average-temperature-anomoly.png/global-average-temperature-anomoly.png/metofficegovuk%3Axsmall

1
 Mike Stretford 10 Jan 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> About the point you made earlier about CO2 levels being 10-20x higher at times in the past, and the climate being cooler. Was this due to major volcanic eruptions?

https://skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermediate.htm

Post edited at 17:54
 Andy Lagan 12 Jan 2020
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

"follow the money" and everything is explained. 

That exists for the Extraction Industry-Heartland institute side of the debate too.

 flash635 16 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Only just seen your post, I thought this thread had finished.

It has warmed consistently on a linear trend since modern records began.  The following graph shows HadCRut4 with trend line at WoodForTrees:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/trend

Note as I have pointed out several times upthread, the onset of glacier melting is around 1850, much too early to be caused by GHG.  The temperature data from 1850 can clearly be characterised as a linear trend of warming (since 1850) with a quasi-periodic fluctuation approximating a sine wave of period about 60-70 years.  A look at the graph I referenced shows this clearly.  That oscillation is generally thought to be internal ocean variability.  Its not something I have invented - removing that effect is a pre-requisite for ECS calculations based on data - see Lewis and Curry 2018 for an example.

The suggestion I have approached this from a political angle is rather at odds with the amount of data references I have posted.  Glacier retreat clearly starts globally around 1850.  There are advances and retreats that follow the quasi-periodic oscillation very closely.  That's why glaciers generally advanced in  two periods in the last 170 years, the first period ending around 1900-1910 and the second period ending around the early 1980's. 

1
 flash635 16 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

SkepticalScience is a propaganda site that bans people who post comments that they don't agree with.

And the first point they make is that CO2 has been higher in geological time.  Its not in dispute.

1
 Andy Moles 16 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> It has warmed consistently on a linear trend since modern records began.  The following graph shows HadCRut4 with trend line at WoodForTrees:

I'm not fluent in graphs, but it appears to me that the trend line has dropped increasingly far below the global average since around 2000, the first period in which it is consistently placed there.

 flash635 16 Jan 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

I can't plot a sine wave at WoodForTrees but if you take the first order regression through temperature data and subtract the trend the periodicity is very clear to see:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:1

 flash635 16 Jan 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

You can fit the temperature data from 1850 to present better than a climate model with a simple linear trend + a sine wave of period around 65 years or so.

If you subtract the linear trend the residuals show the periodic patter very well:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/detrend:1

 flash635 16 Jan 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

If you look at the de-trended global sea temps the periodic ocean oscillation is very clear:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst3gl/detrend:1

 Andy Moles 16 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

It seems a little fanciful to call that a 'periodic pattern', when it oscillates only twice in 180 years.

I'll grant you that the pre-1940 warming period does not seem to be convincingly explained (based on my own limited reading). As to the 1950-1980 'adjustment' - are you implying that there's some deceit going on there?

 flash635 16 Jan 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

Its got a period of around 70 years.  The dataset is only 170 years long, how many times do you think its going to occur? Perhaps 2.4 times?

The periodic pattern is demonstrated to be pervasive throughout most of the Holocene.  It is known and widely published on in climate papers, it is observed in ice core data and has a period of the order of typically 60-70 years.  The definitive paper on it is Knudsen (2011):

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms1186

Finally, many papers on calculation of climate sensitivity based on observations recognise that the cyclic behaviour must be removed form the data before computing the ECS.

 Andy Moles 16 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

Apologies, I thought you were identifying a pattern based on that graph alone.

So in summary, the sea is warming, but if you remove the warming trend there is still this consistent oscillation within the trend, as opposed to an unusual acceleration? It would appear that a bit of a levelling in temperature rise is nearly overdue, no?

 flash635 16 Jan 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

No worries, I am quite thick skinned about this!

So the levelling off in temperatures has already started to happen - it was the "pause" or "hiatus" in warming from about 2000 - 2015.  The climate modellers couldn't explain it and it was not predicted by the models.

Since then we have had a very large El Nino in 2016, a huge temperature spike that pulled the temps back in to (just!) the lower envelope of the model uncertainty.  You can see it in the graph here:

https://i1.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Global-LT-scaled.jpg

El Nino's are natural and can't be predicted or generated by climate models so they should be disregard in any comparison.

You see the big El Nino spike in 1998, a dip down then recovery about 2001-2002.  Then the temps are flat until the 2010 El Nino (which is generally a bit neutral in temp terms because of the dip below and after), then flat until the 2016 El Nino.  Note that the current UAH satellite temp in 2018 is actually on the lowest of the climate models.  UAH is the most reliable satellite temp, but you can see that the RSS satellite value is still below the 95% area of the models.  And only the El Nino spikes of 2010 and 2016 (and 1998) are close to the model mean (black curve).   But as the models cannot reproduce those events, they should be ignored.  So from 1995 to date, ignoring the El Nino's, the temps are always below the model mean and in fact the ONLY time the temps go above the model is the 1998 El Nino.  So the models run hot.  I think that's because they are conflating the last cycle upswing with GHG, attributing it all to GHG and then get an answer that is too hot.  That's why the IPCC can only claim a human "fingerprint" post 1950s - it doesn't work with the last upswing from 1910 - 1945 (which had the same slope - I Posted a Woodfortrees upthread showing that).

That is why ECS from observations is so much lower (about half) model ECS estimates.  They don't include this internal variability in climate models and they certainly don't include El Nino's.  And they only  appear to fit because of natural El Nino's (which have nothing to do with GHG and can't be modelled or predicted).

So I think the flattening has already started.  Here is a graph with two lines fitted to the UAH satellite data.  I have taken 15 year windows in both cases and avoided the big El Nino's in 1998 and 2016:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:1982/to:1997/trend

So before the 1998 El Nino we have a clear uptrend, after that event its flat for 15 years.  So we come out of the upswing of the oscillation and into the top of the period. 

Post edited at 22:51
1
 Andy Moles 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

Flattening, I'll grant you, but not flat. 2015 was still the warmest year on record at the time. And post 2016, admittedly only 3 years' data, it still appears to be rising.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2000/to:2020/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/to:2020/trend

That looks to me like a longer period of increase already than the pre-1940 one.

You have clearly given all this much thought, and pointed out some interesting problems with the current models, but I find it curious that someone committed to factual enquiry would come to such a firm conclusion as you seem to have done, that it's all just hysteria and humans can't do anything about climate, when there is still so much we don't understand.

What would it take for you to give credence to the notion that billions of tonnes of anthropogenic GHG emissions (and destruction of carbon capture sources etc) might just have some effect on the climate?

 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

Thanks for your response.  I fixed the graph you linked at WoodForTrees - you had selected HadCrut4 for the background data but trends on UAH.  I just swapped the data displayed to UAH so the trends overlay the data and also added back the 15 year trend 1982-1997

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2020/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/to:2020/trend

The problem with your last period 2017-2020 is its too short to reliably look at trends.  We are currently in  recovery from an El Nino and may still be in El Nino conditions.  I have added a trend from 2000 - 2003 (same duration as your line) post the 1998 El Nino to make this point (light blue line).  The trend over such a short interval post an El Nino is much higher than your 2017-2020 line, but this is within the flat period of 15 years:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah6/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2015/trend/plot/uah6/from:2017/to:2020/trend/plot/uah6/from:1982/to:1997/trend/plot/uah6/from:2000/to:2003/trend

We will have to wait another 10 years or so to see which model is closest.  If the model I prefer is better, we should see a continuation of climate models going inexorably up but little (or modest) rise in temps.  As estimates of ECS are around 1.5 - 1.8, some GHG effect is expected, but its nowhere near enough for climate catastrophe.

Regarding duration of warming pre-1945, the following plot shows two lines fitted to Hadcrut4 over the same window length of 35 years (half my 70 year period):

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend

The slope of the later one is slightly higher than the pre-1945 line.  The difference in the slopes could reasonably attributed to a (small) GHG effect.  The GHG forcings (very latest - actually for the forthcoming CMIP6 models) have average GHG forcing of 0.76 for 1910-1945 and average 2.31 for 1975-2010.  That's a multiplier of 3x as much forcing - but the temperature gradient is trivially higher.  (As an aside - the ratio of the total forcings, including volcanos, is even higher at 1.45/0.43 = 3.4x!)

If models cannot explain the pre-1945 warming then they cannot be used to conclude post-1970s warming is all anthropogenic and mostly caused by GHG - that's a null hypothesis fail.  The climate models based predominantly on GHG simply don't fit the data.  That means the effect of GHGs is hugely overstated by climate models.  The fact that the trends of the climate models are 2x higher than actually observed in the satellite era is supporting evidence for this.  Climate models have ECS about 3.0, divide that by 2 and you are at ECS of about 1.5.  Observational estimates of ECS are all in the range 1.5 - 2.0 (some are below 1.5).

ECS that low does not lead to a "climate catastrophe" or "climate crisis".

Post edited at 10:07
 wbo2 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:out of curiosity why can't ElNinos be modelled, handled by models?

 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to wbo2:

The El Nino phenomenon is observed as a warming pulse in the Pacific, but the physics are not fully understood and the initiation conditions unknown.  They are effectively random events.  It may be that they are simply not deterministic - we are dealing with a chaotic system.  Random events cannot be modelled in a deterministic climate model.

Similarly with interval variation such as ocean oscillations, the phenomenon is observed but only empirical modelling (or curve fitting) is used as the physical effect does not emerge from climate models.

The trend + sine wave model I have fitted to temperature data has a period of 71 years and the amplitude of the sine wave is +/- 0.15 degC, ie 0.3 deg swing from low to high.  The fit of a simple linear trend + sinewave (in Excel) to the Hadcrut4 temperature data gives a correlation of 0.90 and almost flat residuals.  A climate model (eg run at the MetOffice on a £200 million computer) gives a fit of 0.92, but only after its been scaled by 0.65 and then shifted to fit afterwards.  And it only fits properly post-1950s, and leaves the  cycle down/up from 1890 to 1940 in place.

 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Andy Moles:

To your question:

"What would it take for you to give credence to the notion that billions of tonnes of anthropogenic GHG emissions (and destruction of carbon capture sources etc) might just have some effect on the climate?"

1. Models that work correctly for the entire modern temperature record from 1850

2. Models that don't have 2x the trend (after scaling by 0.65, so really 3x trend) when compared to observed trends post-1979 in satellite data.

3. Models that have an ECS which is consistent with observations (factor 2x lower).

4. Models that properly fit and physically explain the multi-decadel oscillation pre-1945 (and post 1980s)

5. Models that can explain the onset of warming and glacial retreat from around 1850

6. Models that can explain the MWP and LIA

7. Models that work for the Holocene ie don't predict warming when the Holocene is known to have been cooling for 8,000 years since the Holocene optimum

In reply to flash635:

Does it mean anything that the guy who made the wood for trees site says on the about page:

" Ten years on, it now seems clear to me that CO2 is indeed the primary driver of global warming, which is proceeding at roughly 1.5°C per century, but with some interesting short and long-term cycles overlaid. These cycles can produce shorter-term periods of both flatline and rapid increase, which get both 'sides' over-excited."

 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to stevevans5:

Only that he's entitled to his opinion, just like anyone else.

 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> Only just seen your post, I thought this thread had finished.

> It has warmed consistently on a linear trend since modern records began.  The following graph shows HadCRut4 with trend line at WoodForTrees:

Anyone can superimpose a straight line over a scatter plot, it doesn't make it valid, and that fit certainly isn't.

> Note as I have pointed out several times upthread, the onset of glacier melting is around 1850, much too early to be caused by GHG. 

You can point it out as many times as you like, it still isn't a valid statement.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1145-7

https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/56652FA8B1A73794947DCAB7B0D53870/S0260305500251501a.pdf/geodetic_and_direct_massbalance_measurements_comparison_and_joint_analysis.pdf

Note the large errors in the historic measurements, and discussion of those. What we can say is that in the 20th century there is a clear decrease in the mass glacier bias from the long term average. For the last 50 years, where of course the quality of the data improves dramatically, Cogley states "a relative maximum near 1970 and an accelerating decrease since then".

> The temperature data from 1850 can clearly be characterised as a linear trend of warming (since 1850)

No, your own link demonstrates that is wrong.

> The suggestion I have approached this from a political angle is rather at odds with the amount of data references I have posted.  

No, the links you post, and the ones you don't demonstrate your political angle. If there was any doubt, your unscientific interpretation of data seals it.

What I see in your posting is an attempt to muddy the waters, so let's get to the basics.

Is there anything in this explanation of the greenhouse effect you disagree with?

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect

2
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Note the large errors in the historic measurements, and discussion of those. What we can say is that in the 20th century there is a clear decrease in the mass glacier bias from the long term average. For the last 50 years, where of course the quality of the data improves dramatically, Cogley states "a relative maximum near 1970 and an accelerating decrease since then".

The European Alps were essentially ice-free from 10,000 to 3,300 years ago.

As Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace) quoted from the IPCC 2007 climate change statement:

Climate is a “coupled non-linear chaotic system”,  for which   “the long-term prediction of future long term climate states is not possible.”

3
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

The Leclerc/Oerlemans 2011 paper you reference very neatly proves my point - Figure 3 clearly shows a significant number of glacial retreats commencing around 1850 and some earlier.  A point to add here - I have the entire database of glacier lengths on which that paper is based sitting on my computer in a spreadsheet, I actively analyse it, so its not like I haven't looked at this stuff.  You also have to explain the onset of modern sea level rise (which lags temperature) commencing back in the 19th Century as well.  I stand by my statement that there are 3 truly independent data sources (temps, sea level, glacier lengths) that show onset of modern warming starts around the middle of the 19th Century.

Notwithstanding that, the suggestion of unprecedented warming post 1950s (actually onset from around 1980), is clearly not supported by the temperature data - a 35 year period from 1910-1945 has a trend slope which is only trivially lower than the period 1975 - 2010:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975/to:2010/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1910/to:1945/trend

and yet the supposed net forcing in the later period is over 3x the forcing in the earlier period.  So how do we get almost identical gradients for the two periods when forcing is the only driver of trends according to the IPCC?  Even without invoking a multi-decadal oscillation that observation is not easily explained away.  And also you will note that the time gap between those two periods is 30 years - this also supports the multi-decadel oscillation explanation with a period of 60 - 70 years.

Regarding the GH effect, I have no problem with it.   As I have stated up-thread, the physics is largely uncontroversial and states that, in the absence of feedbacks, the warming from a doubling of CO2 is expected to be 3.7 W/m^2 * 0.31 = 1.15 degC per doubling.  The 0.31 is the Planck sensitivity constant.  That's the basic physics of the GH effect in its entirety.  The disagreement is over the large positive feedback multiplier of about 2.8 built into the climate models which gives the climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 as 3.7 * 0.31 * 2.8 = 3.2 degC per doubling (or thereabouts - models vary).  The IPCC claims the range of uncertainty on ECS is 1.5 - 4.5.  But climate models run with these high values generate warming trends 2x that observed in satellite data from 1979.  And methods of estimating ECS directly from observations suggest ECS best estimate is in the range 1.5 - 2.0 (and some put it below 1.5).

So how do you reconcile a model with a best estimate ECS that's 2x the ECS  estimate based on observations, and which overstates the warming trend post 1979 by a factor of 2x?  And those same climate models give a low temp slope 1910 - 1945 and a high slope 1975 - 2010 and yet the temperature data shows the temperature trends over the two periods are almost the same?

All the points in my last paragraph are facts, not opinions.  As far as I can see the only way to reconcile these points is to accept the large positive feedback built in to climate models is too high, likely by a factor of about 2 (models vary).

Post edited at 13:44
1
 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Dave Cumberland:

> The European Alps were essentially ice-free from 10,000 to 3,300 years ago.

> As Patrick Moore (founder of Greenpeace) quoted from the IPCC 2007 climate change statement:

> Climate is a “coupled non-linear chaotic system”,  for which   “the long-term prediction of future long term climate states is not possible.”

Irrelevant waffle. Patrick Moore's claim to be one of the Greenpeace founders was disputed by the people considered to be the founders. I don't really give a shit but it does demonstrate that you are happy to post misinformation on history as well as science.

Is there anything in this explanation of the greenhouse effect you disagree with?

https://scied.ucar.edu/longcontent/greenhouse-effect 2

2
In reply to flash635:

Who or what industry puts money in your pocket?

You seem to be cherry picking!

In the meantime I'm going to listen to these guys https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

2
 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> The Leclerc/Oerlemans 2011 paper you reference very neatly proves my point - Figure 3 clearly shows a significant number of glacial retreats commencing around 1850 and some earlier. 

It doesn't, you are cherry picking data (big no no that!), and completely failing to acknoledge the large errors associated with historical data and estimates.

> Regarding the GH effect, I have no problem with it.   As I have stated upthread, the physics is largely uncontroversial and states that, in the absence of feedbacks, the warming from a doubling of CO2 should be 3.7 W/m^2 * 0.31 = 1.15 degC per doubling.  The 0.31 is the Planck sensitivity constant.  That's the GH effect in its entirety.  The disagreement is over the large positive feedback multiplier of 2.8 built into the climate models which gives the climate sensitivity to doubling of CO2 as 3.7 * 0.31 * 2.8 = 3.2 degC per doubling (or thereabouts - models vary).  The models with these high values generate warming trends 2x that observed in satellite data from 1979.  And methods of estimating ECS directly from observations suggest ECS best estimate is in the range 1.5 - 2.0 (and some put it below 1.5).

Cox et al got a central estimate of ECS at 2.8

https://ore.exeter.ac.uk/repository/handle/10871/34396?show=full

(link to full article below abstract)

Please explain why you disagree with reference to the paper.

Post edited at 13:55
2
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to sandrow:

In my experience, when someone stops responding to the points and invokes either "who pays you to say this" or accuses you of "cherry picking", it generally means they cannot counter the arguments put forward.  Contrast your comment with Andy Moles on this thread.  I think Andy Moles doesn't agree with me, but accepts I have some valid points.  The dialogue has been interesting as a consequence and is based on mutual trust that both parties are at least being honest about data sources and information.

Regarding climate, why stop at NASA?  How about NOAA and NCAR?  NCAR are the keepers of the AMO data, the web page is:

https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/atlantic-multi-decadal-oscillation-amo

You will notice that the arch-warmer scientist Kevin Trenberth provides the expert guidance on that page as to how detrending affects the estimates.  They also note a 60 - 80 years period and that the AMO is a robust, identified phenomenon.  You will also note the lack of understanding of the causes of the AMO in the following statement:

"Quantifying the relative importance of large scale ocean circulation (especially AMOC) vs. external radiative forcing in causing the AMO is challenging"

Removing the significant effects of the AMO (and other oscillations) from temperature datasets is fundamental to estimating climate sensitivity.  Climate models can't do it, which is why they fail to predict the warming 1910-1945 and overestimate the sensitivity to GHGs post 1950s.

3
 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> Climate models can't do it, which is why they fail to predict the warming 1910-1945 and overestimate the sensitivity to GHGs post 1950s.

That statement is at odds with the IPCC's Evaluation of Climate Models. Please explain why you disagree with this (specifically section 9.4), with reference to the chapter and the papers cited.

 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I disagree with your comments re:Leclerc/Oerlemans 2011, readers here can look at the Figure 3 and form their own opinion.  The comprehensive global glacier length paper is Solomina et al 2016 which includes all the glaciers in Leclerc - this is the data set I have.  The Figure 6 paper on which its based which is Solomina et al 2016 can be downloaded from ResearchGate at:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305765598_Glacier_fluctuations_during_the_past_2000_years

The figure to look at is Fig 6, bottom panel, which clearly shows onset of glacial retreat predates modern global warming post-1950s.  Because Solomina keeps constant resolution over 2,000 yrs in the plot, the detail is not apparent in the last 200 years or so, but I have examined the more detailed modern data and the onset of retreat is very strong in many (not all) glaciers.  The rate of the first retreat in the 19th century of the Mer de Glace, for example, was higher/as high from 1860 on than its current rate of retreat.

As this thread started with glaciers in the Alps, here are some comments from Solomina et al 2016 about alpine glaciers:

"The first centuries CE were characterized by retracted glacier termini. Some evidence is available that at least some glaciers (e.g. Great Aletsch and Steinlimni in the Swiss Alps) were as small as they were during the late 20th century"

Note the Aletsch is the largest glacier in the alps.  It also explains why Roman artefact are being found under what was until recently permanent snow cover on alpine passes.

Looking more recently they describe the LIA:

"The most widespread phase of glacier advances in the Alps (~CE 1600 to 1860) is characterized by a series of advances during which generally similar extents were reached: 1600, 1640, 1680, 1720, 1775, 1820 and 1855/60"

And then finally they say:

"General retreat began after CE 1860 and was interrupted by readvances around 1890, 1920 and 1980. However, some glaciers, e.g., Great Aletsch Glacier (Holzhauser et al., 2005), have retreated continuously since their mid-19th century maxima"

Post edited at 14:19
1
In reply to flash635:

1) Scientific papers have a disclosure section where authors give details of any potential conflicts of interest. In this thread you are posting conclusions that are at odds with the experts in this field (NASA, Met Office, etc.) so I am justified to want to know if you have a financial axe to grind.

3) Climate-change skepticism has a history of funding from industries with the most to lose if we reduce our dependence on coal/oil/gas. Again, a reasonable reason to want to know something about you.

2) I don't have the time to wade my way through all the papers that have been published on the subject of climate change. So I look to the experts to do the research, literature reviews, etc. The consensus view of the experts I trust (NASA, Met Office, etc.) is that there has been a dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 caused by mans activities and that this is having an impact on climate.

2
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

"Cox et al got a central estimate of ECS at 2.8"

And? That's an outlier compared to most other recent papers in the field which put it below 2.0 (see end of post).  In my opinion the go to people on ECS are Nic Lewis and Judith Curry. So if you want an opinion on that paper, go to Nic Lewis - he's the expert. Either at his website:

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/articles-relevant-to-climate-sensitivity/

or at ClimateAudit where he has posted articles on why he thinks there are problems with using emergent constraints for estimating ECS and also references Cox.

https://climateaudit.org/2018/03/29/emergent-constraints-on-climate-sensitivity-in-global-climate-models-part-3/

Finally, finding a paper that says ECS is 2.8 doesn't negate the point about comparing climate model trends to satellite data trends.  Because the models show 2x the warming of satellites since 1979 using an ECS of about 3.0, a high estimate of ECS contradicts observations but a low estimate does not.  That fact simply will not go away.  As the great physicist Feynman famously said:

"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are.  If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."

The satellite temperature observations are the experiment.  The climate models with ECS of 3.0 don't agree with that data...but low ECS values such as from Lewis and Curry (5 papers with different approaches), Aldrin (2 papers), Otto (2 papers) and Skeie - all those authors have a central estimate of ECS below 2.0 do agree with observations.  The consensus here doesn't matter - it is the fact that these estimates are consistent with observations that's important.

1
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

"Please explain why you disagree with this (specifically section 9.4), with reference to the chapter and the papers cited"

No Mike, I am not going to do your homework for you.  And as much I would like the time to write a treatise (with references and citations) to an entire IPCC chapter for a UKclimbing blog, I am not going to fall for that.

If you want to understand the failings of climate models I highly recommend the transcript of the APS workshop post-AR5 where they got together 6 of the most credentialed atmospheric physicists/climate scientists, 3 from each side of the argument, and subjected them to questions (on the record) from a neutral and well respected physicist.  Its over 500 pages long (widely spaced lines though) but will give you many of the reasons I have explained here.  You can find the document at:

https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/upload/climate-seminar-transcript.pdf

anyone who wants the truth about climate model failings would do well to start with that document.  Its an eye opener.

Finally Mike if you want to see the failings of the climate models download Hadrut4 temperatures and the mean climate model output as a function of time, put them in a spreadsheet and (after baselining them correctly to 1961-1990), subtract the model from the observed temperatures and look at the residuals.  And then come back and explain why the warming 1910 - 1945 is still there in the residuals but everything disappears (in fact, ends up with negative slope residuals) post 1950s.

So that's your homework. 

1
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to sandrow:

"Climate-change skepticism has a history of funding from industries with the most to lose if we reduce our dependence on coal/oil/gas."

That's an urban myth, not a fact.  I have yet to see any substantive evidence to support that claim.  Such arguments are really the realm of politics, activists etc.  I have tried here to present facts which are easily checkable and which point clearly to the "climate crisis" being overhyped and exaggerated.  Note that is not to say that GHGs have no effect, that would be silly, but the impact is hugely overstated and likely benign.

If you don't have the time to research yourself and you simply want to take the experts word for it then just ignore what I am saying and carry on.  Nothing I can do about it.  I have tried to point out some very simple (but powerful) facts that contradict the story of "climate crisis".  Those facts can be relatively easily checked.  Knowledge of my background or (lack of!) funding for my personal opinions will not change those facts or explain them away.

 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> "Cox et al got a central estimate of ECS at 2.8"

> And? That's an outlier compared to most other recent papers in the field which put it below 2.0 (see end of post). 

It isn't an outlier, that's pure bullshit. The paper is a comprehensive assessment of the field. It is telling that you could not do what I requested.

> In my opinion the go to people on ECS are Nic Lewis and Judith Curry.

Funny that. You reject peer reviewed work, but take your opinions from Curry, who ended her scientific work to pursue a political/lobbying career. Or in Nic Lewis's case ended his career in finance to become a full time denier.

2
 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> "Please explain why you disagree with this (specifically section 9.4), with reference to the chapter and the papers cited"

> No Mike, I am not going to do your homework for you.  And as much I would like the time to write a treatise (with references and citations) to an entire IPCC chapter for a UKclimbing blog, I am not going to fall for that.

And with that smiley your bullshit hits the buffers.

3
 Harry Jarvis 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> "Climate-change skepticism has a history of funding from industries with the most to lose if we reduce our dependence on coal/oil/gas."

> That's an urban myth, not a fact.  I have yet to see any substantive evidence to support that claim. 

According to an article in Forbes magazine, oil and gas companies have been spending huge amounts of money:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2019/03/25/oil-and-gas-giants-spend-millions-lobbying-to-block-climate-change-policies-infographic/#3303767b7c4f

It's very easy to find similar stories relating to lobbying efforts funded by the oil and gas industries. 

There's also an interesting story regarding the Koch brothers and funding. They have very considerable interests in the oil and gas industries and have spent many years lobbying, either directly or indirectly, against climate scientists. In 2010, they supported the establishment of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project. The project leader was a UC Berkeley physicist Richard Muller. He was suspicious of the analyses undertaken on surface temperature datasets. In the course of the first phase of the project, he went from a position of climate skepticism to a firm belief that the analyses of the time were accurate and properly representative. It is perhaps noteworthy that while other corporate sponsors have continued with their funding, the Koch brothers did not continue with their funding. It may be coincidence that their funding ceased when the project produced results which did not give support to climate denial or climate skeptical positions. 

 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> If you want to understand the failings of climate models I highly recommend the transcript of the APS workshop

Let's just go with the resultant APS statement on climate change

https://www.aps.org/policy/statements/15_3.cfm

I assume you disagree with that? What happened? Who nobbled the APS?

1
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Hi Mike,

You said:

"It isn't an outlier, that's pure bullshit. The paper is a comprehensive assessment of the field. It is telling that you could not do what I requested."

In case you haven't noticed, I don't have to do anything you request!  And not following your direction is not indicative of anything.  I gave you the names of 5 authors with 10 recent papers between them that all find observational estimates of ECS below 2.0.  That's simply the way it is.  If you choose to believe Cox et al, 2018 so be it.

As for Nic Lewis, characterising him as "climate denier" is quite extraordinary.  As is your characterisation of Judith Curry.  In case you haven't noticed, both Curry and Lewis continue to get papers past peer review and published in the mainstream journals.  You can disagree with my preference for Lewis and Curry on ECS, you can choose to agree with Cox et al, but throwing in an Ad Hominem against credentialed scientists such as Lewis and Curry is, to me, a sign that you are losing the argument.

So here's the fundamental problem with climate models, in a nutshell.  Cox et al 2018 claim ECS is 2.8, climate models average over 3 (then reduced to about 2.2 by scaling back by 0.65 to fit temps).

But the warming trends from climate models (consistent with Cox et al) average out at 2x higher than observed warming trends in satellite data (which starts in 1979).  And the actual satellite trend (UAH) sits at the 99% confidence level and RSS satellite trend sits at 95% confidence ie falling off the bottom.

So which is wrong - the satellite observations or the climate models and Cox?

My money says the satellite observations trump virtual reality computer models any day.

One final point on Nic Lewis - he is a very careful researcher.  When the BBC headlined the Resplandy et al ocean heat content paper in November 2018, Nic was the guy who pointed out that the paper is simply wrong.  Even the first regression was wrong.  Its amazing how it even got past peer review at that most prestigious journal Nature.  Wall to wall MSM coverage, but Resplandy et al 2018 was shown clearly to be wrong by Nic.

1
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

If you want to believe all that, its fine with me.  I don't agree with it.  Opinions vary.

1
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

You said

"I assume you disagree with that? What happened? Who nobbled the APS?"

Did anyone "nobble" the APS?  Why would you think that? Why don't you ask them?

I am not interested in climate policy statements decided by committees (or member votes) and I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories.  I am interested in the science and scientific progress is not determined by voting or "consensus".

Why don't you read the APS workshop transcript where both sceptical and warming scientific experts hammer out some of the issues - on the record?  As I said, its a very interesting and eye-opening read.  You may even discover facts about climate models that might upset your strongly held views.

 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> As for Nic Lewis, characterising him as "climate denier" is quite extraordinary.  As is your characterisation of Judith Curry.  In case you haven't noticed, both Curry and Lewis continue to get papers past peer review and published in the mainstream journals. 

They do publish, and Nic is very contentious.... but they do both have a clear political agenda which they do not hide. Maybe 'denier' is the wrong word, Nic does appear to accept anthropogenic climate change is real, just that it won't be as bad as some scientists state. (btw is that your position?)

They have published some competent work, but that has been critiqued but some other very competent people.

https://www.nicholaslewis.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/LewisCurry_The-impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity_JCli2018.pdf

https://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/18/5147/2018/acp-18-5147-2018.pdf

My hunch is you will  accept Lewis's work, but have a problem with the response.

Post edited at 16:24
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I think Lewis and Curry do good work and you even tacitly acknowledge that.  People can disagree, academics often do.  But Nic certainly demolished the Resplandy et al 2018 paper that the BBC headlined.

However, none of this changes my central point which I keep repeating and which you never respond to, which is this:

Cox et al 2018 (for example) claim ECS is 2.8, climate models average ECS is over 3 (then reduced to about 2.2 by scaling back by 0.65 to fit temps).

But the warming trends from climate models (and consistent with Cox et al) average out at 2x higher than observed warming trends in satellite data (which starts in 1979).  And the actual satellite trend (UAH) sits at the 99% confidence level and RSS satellite trend sits at 95% confidence ie falling off the bottom.

So which is wrong - the satellite observations or the climate models and Cox?

You can cite as many papers and climate models as you like showing high ECS but it doesn't change the simple fact that satellite observations of temperature since 1979 (both RSS and UAH) show an average warming trend which is much lower than high ECS climate models, by approximately a factor of 2x.

Its not a matter of preference or accepting a particular person's work, its a matter of which result actually fits reality.

1
 wbo2 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:  if you're able to include a well as you claim it's obviously not random.. you just can't explain it.  But that's ok.  If it is random just describe it stochastically.  

I'm curious if you're so much better a match than models as you claim at all locations? Or indeed if you're selectively cherry picking models and specifically realisations of models and ignoring others..

 Harry Jarvis 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> If you want to believe all that, its fine with me.  I don't agree with it. 

Why not? 

 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> So which is wrong - the satellite observations or the climate models and Cox?

There a different types of satellite temperatures. You are probably referring to tropospheric measurements which have shown anomalies which are now better understood.

Infrared surface temperature satellite measurements, and ground based measurements are now in good agreement, and both of those are in good agreement with climate models.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-a-match-satellite-and-ground-measurements-agree-on-warming/

Are you claiming all those measurements are wrong?

> Its not a matter of preference or accepting a particular person's work, its a matter of which result actually fits reality.

Stop cherry picking then!

 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to wbo2:

"If it is random just describe it stochastically.  "

Climate models are forward, deterministic models.  Adding random stochastic events won't improve the fit (or the understanding) and if you only allowed random stochastic events that did fit you are simply performing what is know as post-hoc selection.  That's just making it fit better for the sake of it.  It certainly doesn't add information.

Post edited at 18:06
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Harry Jarvis:

Because I am interested in the science, not politicised claims about "fossil fuel funded denial" and conspiracy theories.  You can believe what you want in that area, I am not going to have a pointless argument about it.

 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Climate models actually simulate the atmosphere.  Extracting the trends from the troposphere part of the climate models and comparing to the tropospheric satellite data sets (both of them: RSS and UAH) the climate models have significantly higher trends than either satellite dataset.

I would also point out that of the satellite datasets, UAH has the smallest change log over time.  And HadCRut4 has the smallest change log over time of the surface temperature datasets.

Other than vertical shifts, all the main temperature datasets agree post 1979 with satellite data:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/plot/rss/from:1979/plot/uah6/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979#

This graphs shows just the trends for the 4 main datasets:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend

Note the highest trend is RSS and the lowest trend is UAH.  The two main surface datasets have slopes in between the two satellite datasets.

I linked upthread to the trend comparison of the models to the satellites.  RSS is higher (about 95% percentile) and UAH is lowest (about 99% percentile).  The trend graph above from WoodForTrees shows the two main surface temp datasets lie between thopse two trends.

So the 4 main temperature datasets are bumping along at the lower bound of the trends of the climate models, about a factor of 2x below the climate model average.  So no cherrypicking - all the 4 main datasets show warming trends at the bottom edge of the climate models.

 toad 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

If you are interested in the science, you should listen to it. We are way past the point of debate or alternative viewpoints. Its like debating with a two year old about running into the road without looking

2
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to toad:

You said:

"If you are interested in the science, you should listen to it."

What does that mean? That I should accept the bestowed wisdom from my betters?  That's an appeal to authority and its certainly not how science works.  Besides, all the technical points here that I have posted are in fact science.

"We are way past the point of debate or alternative viewpoints."

Are we?  just remind me when that debate took place and why was I not invited?  Shutting down the argument and no-platforming are the tools of politicians and activists, not scientists.

3
 toad 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

The last 30 frecking years

3
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I am starting to wonder if you are actually paying attention.  In this comment of yours:

"Infrared surface temperature satellite measurements, and ground based measurements are now in good agreement, and both of those are in good agreement with climate models.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-a-match-satellite-and-ground-measurements-agree-on-warming/ 

Are you claiming all those measurements are wrong?"

You link to an article that confirms that satellites and surface measures agree.  It specifically references GISTEMP (its a puff piece by Gavin Schmidt, as its his dataset, its not surprising).  But the article doesn't mention climate models.

So where do I say I think the measurements are wrong?  I don't - you made that up.  The measures are ok.  The trends from observations are (largest to smallest): RSS, GISTEMP/HADCRUT4 then UAH.

The CLIMATE MODEL mean trends are 2x larger than the data trends.  The climate models don't agree with reality (the data).

  You will note on the graph comparing the model trends for all 102 CMIP5 model runs to actual data, all the data trends are at the bottom end.

https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Global-LT-ranking-scaled.jpg

RSS sits just outside the 95% confidence interval and UAH sits at the 99% CI.  GISTEMP and HADCRUT have trends that sit between those two satellite datasets.

I have added BEST to the set of trendlines at woodfortrees.  It plots just less than the RSS trend :

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend/plot/best/from:1979/trend

That means that all 5 of the major temperature datasets lie outside the 95% confidence interval of the climate model trends.

That's a fail in my book.  Something is wrong with the climate models, they are running too hot.

Post edited at 19:00
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to toad:

So the science is settled then?

 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> Other than vertical shifts, all the main temperature datasets agree post 1979 with satellite data:

Those 'vertical shifts' are pretty significant!

So you accept Hadcrut4 data, yes?

If so what is wrong with this Metoffice post?

https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/2017/09/25/climate-models-an-essential-tool-for-guiding-policy/

 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> I am starting to wonder if you are actually paying attention.  In this comment of yours:

> "Infrared surface temperature satellite measurements, and ground based measurements are now in good agreement, and both of those are in good agreement with climate models.

> Are you claiming all those measurements are wrong?"

> You link to an article that confirms that satellites and surface measures agree. 

No, the article points out that satellite-based infrared surface measurements match ground based data. It's well established that both of those compare well to climate models, I assumed you were aware of that.

The microwave based satellite troposheric measurements you are referring to have shown anomalies with other measurement techniques and models, though recently RSS have corrected theirs and it is now closer to other data, as the article points out.

Edit: I'm curious, are you aware there are different satellite techniques, and are just attempting to muddy the waters? Or is it a genuine misunderstanding?

Post edited at 19:31
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

You said:

"The microwave based satellite tropospheric measurements you are referring to have shown anomalies with other measurement techniques and models, though recently RSS have corrected theirs and it is now closer to other data, as the article points out."

Actually the very significant change to RSS made in May 2015,  The change logs are shown on the air temperature page a,t climate4you, which monitors this stuff.

None of this is actually relevant and you are clearing avoiding the question.  RSS is the highest temperature trend of all the 5 main datasets.  The trend from RSS is the highest of all of those 5 and it sits at the 95% confidence point compared to climate models.  This is shown very clearly here:

https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Global-LT-ranking-scaled.jpg

The climate models run too hot by a significant factor.  How do you explain that?

1
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

The vertical shifts to the whole datasets don't matter when comparing to climate models as temperature datasets are in anomalies and climate model output is in absolute temps.  Models have to be statically shifted to compare anyway.

Shifts also do not affect trends, so its irrelevant when comparing model trends to data trends.

Of the surface temperature datasets I think HadCRut4 is the most reliable and it has the fewest changes over time.  I also prefer the fact that is it not interpolated, so closer to actual measurements.  The most reliable satellite set is UAH.  In this I am in agreement with climate4you that monitor this stuff.

As to what is wrong with the Met Office post - I have no idea.  I am not going to be deflected by you from question.  I can't see how its relevant to the point I am making which is that climate model trends are significantly hotter than trends from data.  But you have avoided discussing that point once again and diverted to something else.

1
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

You said "It's well established that both of those compare well to climate models, I assumed you were aware of that."

Er, no it isn't.  That's what this plot shows quite clearly:

https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Global-LT-ranking-scaled.jpg

Its difficult to see how such a simple metric as comparing model trends of warming to data trends of warming and finding they significantly disagree and that the real data trends sit outside the 95% confidence interval of the model trends fits with the claim they "compare well to climate models"

I suppose if you squint and wave your arms pointing at distractions they might, but not when you actually do the computations and compare. 

3
 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> Of the surface temperature datasets I think HadCRut4 is the most reliable and it has the fewest changes over time.  I also prefer the fact that is it not interpolated, so closer to actual measurements.  The most reliable satellite set is UAH.  In this I am in agreement with climate4you that monitor this stuff.

> As to what is wrong with the Met Office post - I have no idea. 

There's nothing wrong with it. Hadcrut4 data is in good agreement with climate models.

https://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/global-annual-mean-hadcrut4-gistemp-noaa-cmip5.jpg

It does rather blow your argument, with dodgy graphics from dodgy websites, out the water. And no I'm not engaging with that crap.

1
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

That's funny Mike.  I actually bothered to download the CMIP5 model output sets and of course all the main temperature datasets and can confirm that the "dodgy graphic" from a "dodgy website" agrees with the calculations I perform myself on the actual models and the actual data.  

And the graphic is from Roy Spencer, who is one of two main scientists that run the UAH satellite system.  You know - the satellite dataset that agrees with all the other temperature datasets.

Your argument now is to claim the data I present is dodgy and then duck out.  You might as well have written "look - there's a squirrel".

I'll leave others to form their own opinion from this latter exchange, but suffice to say I left a post way upthread pointing out that a requirement of civilised debate is to at least accept that other party is being genuine and honest in their dealings with you.  If you don't accept that premise, no progress can be made.

Best wishes anyway.

2
In reply to flash635:

If you are right and all climate science wrong, we are in luck. But so what, what changes? 

 Mike Stretford 17 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> And the graphic is from Roy Spencer, who is one of two main scientists that run the UAH satellite system.  You know - the satellite dataset that agrees with all the other temperature datasets.

It doesn't, but then it is an indirect measurement of tropospheric temperature, I wouldn't expect it to be the same as direct ground based measurement.  Your link looks dodgy as it's a slide with an inexplicable picture of Putin on it.

> Your argument now is to claim the data I present is dodgy and then duck out.  You might as well have written "look - there's a squirrel".

No, my argument was to point out that Hadcrut4 data correlates well with climate models. It's very relevant to our discussion.

 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

You said "No, my argument was to point out that Hadcrut4 data correlates well with climate models"

Correlation is not the issue, temperature trend is.  We are talking about global warming, which indicates an increase of warming over time.  So the obvious metric to evaluate climate models is to compare the trends they predict with the actual measured trends over time.

I already showed this graph.  In case its not clear, I have simplified it.  You seem to like HadCrut4, so I just show the trends for HadCrut4 and for the RSS and UAH satellite data sets:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/rss/from:1979/trend/plot/uah6/from:1979/trend

It should be obvious that the fastest trend on that graph is RSS, the slowest is UAH and the HadCrut4 trend is slightly greater than UAH, but quite close to it.  So HadCrut4 is between RSS and UAH trends.

So Roy Spencer shows the temperature gradients for the climate models compared to RSS and UAH in the following graph:

https://i0.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Global-LT-ranking-scaled.jpg 

The RSS and UAH trends are clearly marked.  They are at the bottom end of the climate model trends.  HadCrut4 would plot closer to UAH than RSS, but it would still be outside the 95% confidence interval for the model trends.

If the climate models cannot replicate the trends we observe in the real world, what use are they?  The claim that climate models "correlate" with HadCrut4 may be true, but the metric we are interested in for predicting global warming is.....er…..warming trends.

PS Putin is there because the model that most closely fits the UAH satellite trend and that has the lowest warming trend is...the RUSSIAN model!  So it must be a conspiracy then!  Its just a little joke.

Post edited at 20:53
2
 flash635 17 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

You said: "There's nothing wrong with it. Hadcrut4 data is in good agreement with climate models."

and then showed this graphic:

https://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/global-annual-mean-hadcrut4-gistemp-noaa-cmip5.jpg 6

But the models are not actually plotted on there! Only the temperature datasets (shifted to agree) are plotted as lines.  The models are represented by the shaded area in orange.  That way it disguises the fact that the trends post-1979 disagree.  Also, you will note the shaded area ismore above the line than below on the right hand end - that's because the models run hot.

And of course that big spike at the end to the right is an El Nino - so should be disregarded when comparing to models as they cannot simulate it.

Hope you didn't think that was a plot showing the actual climate models!

 caver 17 Jan 2020
In reply to toad:

> The last 30 frecking years


Yes.. the scientific majority and popular belief have always got it right.

Copernicus, Galileo and geocentrism. The earth orbited the Sun..utter tosh. Heretic. Lifetime house arrest was too good for him.

Darwin and evolution.

Wegener and the concept of continental drift. Dismissed by the Smithsonian as 'delirious ravings'. Completely at odds with all scientific reality according to the geological community.

Lister and antiseptic. Utterly scorned. Attacked by the Lancet who published warnings against his work.

For such an important matter; why are we so ready to attack and shout down those who question.

1
 flash635 18 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

You showed this graphic from the Met Office:

https://metofficenews.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/global-annual-mean-hadcrut4-gistemp-noaa-cmip5.jpg

This actually demonstrates all the points I have been making, so thank you!

The graphic is misleading.  It does not show a climate model results plotted as a line at all.  That is deliberate, because then the problems would become apparent.  All three lines plotted on the graph are surface temperature datasets - HadCrut4, GISTEPM and NOAA.

The climate model results are shown as the shaded area in orange, from the lower 97.5% to the upper 2.5% bound (a 95% confidence interval).  This is a recent example where the climate models have been re-baselined to try and get them to fit and the error bars adjusted.  However, we can still see some of the failings even when its disguised like this:

1. In 1910 the temperature lines all drop out of the bottom of the climate model error bars.  That's a fail.

2. I have talked a lot here about how the trend from 1910 - 1945 is as high as the post-1980s trend and how the climate models cannot reproduce it.  That can be seen by the way the surface temperature lines track through the orange error range from 1910-1945.  The actual temps start outside and below the error bars in 1910 but when we reach 1945 the temps are now just touching the upper error band. Its quite obvious that the model trend through the middle of the orange panel is to low to match the much higher trend in the temps.

3. From 2000 on you can see that the temp lines do not sit in the middle of the error bars - the track low.

4. Only after the large 2016 El Nino - the spike at the end - do the surface temps get into the climate model error bar somewhere near the centre.  But climate models can't do El Nino's, so a natural, unpredictable short term warming spike is what brings them back up.

5. In that graphic the temps only lie properly in the centre of the climate model error band in the period 1970-2000.  That's because all the datasets and the models in that graphic have been baselined (arbitrarily shifted) in that period to make them agree.

There is a very good reason for not showing the actual climate models as lines.  That's because they look like this:

https://i1.wp.com/www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/ICCC13-DC-Spencer-25-July-2019-Global-LT-scaled.jpg 

Here the mess of the models have been matched with a window to the start of the satellite data so we can see how well they predict the next 40 years.  The answer is badly - they overpredict temperature rise.  And the satellite data are falling out of the bottom of the error band - both RSS and UAH.

A further important point to note is that the climate models as presented to match surface temps use a scaling factor of about 0.65 to get them to match, but when they make future climate catastrophe predictions out to year 2100 they don't apply the scaling factor to make them look more scary (as if running to hot already wasn't enough.  The APS transcript has details of the scaling, as does Nic Lewis' website.

Post edited at 08:21
In reply to flash635:

When you say a number of years outside the 95% ci for the model is a fail - presuming that happens on less than 5% of years is it not compatible with the model fitting the data? Hence not a fail.

 flash635 18 Jan 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Interesting comment, but I don't agree. The models are built on the premise that all known forcings are included. The error bars are the envelope of uncertainty  at any point in time and are independent of the progression in time. In other words the error bars are calculated as 1D in time.

The only reason for the temp series to go outside the model error bars (if all anthropogenic and natural forcings are ìdentified and included, as is claimed) would be due to an event that cannot be modelled or predicted.

According to IPCC that only applies to El Nino upward spikes and La Nina cool periods. El Nino's could easily pop out the top - but note how the 2016 event pops it back up to the centre of the error bars. That's  not correct - if the model trends were right the 2016 El Nino should break out the top error bound.

So the Met Office graphic is an obfuscation. Most people don't  realise the El Nino's  should break out the top, so they can fool people into thinking the climate models are working properly by baselining it this way.

El Nino's  also have a big impact on trends, especially at the start or end of a window. Thats why when i showed 15 year trends in a plot upthread i carefully avoided the 1998 and 2016 events in my windows.

I would also add that careful baselining and scaling also make it possible to fiddle with the presentation and make the climate models look better than they really are. The baseline is arbitrary.  That's why the Roy Spencer graphics are so important. By baselining everything to the start of the satellite  period we can see how badly the forward prediction to the present is.

Similarly, Roy Spencer compares the warming trends. Warming trends are what matter after all. Trends are unaffected by baselining so it immediately  demonstrates how overstated  the model trends are. Note the model outputs are still scaled by about 0.65 to match temp data. Without that quiet rescaling the trend mismatch would be even more obvious.

Post edited at 09:04
In reply to flash635:

I appreciate they are a one off prediction, but I’d expect in any well fitting model which has uncertainty that from time to time the real result will fall outside the expected range. 
 

as long as those are rare events - and they look to be from that graph. Then I would not be too upset.

 flash635 18 Jan 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

So why do the large El Nino's  in 1998 and 2016 not go outside the error bounds? These events should definitely  go above the upper bounds as they are high variance excursions that cannot be modelled.

If the temp baseline was shifted to put post 2000s in the centre of the error range and the 2016 El Nino at the top of the error bound the mismatch to the warming 1910-1945 would become very evident. And the period through the 1950's  to 1970's,  as well as the earlier part, would all pop out above the upper bound. That's because the temp trends in the period 1910-1945  and 1975-2010 are the same but the ghg forcings are over 3x different. The models get different trends where the temp trends are almost identical. That means the model assupmtions are wrong. I think that's because both the 1910-1945  and 1975-2010 trends are influenced by internal ocean variabilty and the models assume all that is ghg after 1975. But they can't also fit the period 1910-1945  with that model. You can see the model trend 1910-1945  is much lower than the actual temp trend in that period, that's  why the temps cross from the bottom to the top of the error band in that period.

None of this affects the trend comparison anyway. And as the warming trends are the only "evidence" for future catastrophe,  the fact that the models warm far too fast is a serious bust.

Post edited at 09:50
In reply to flash635:

Depends what else was happening at the same time. You seem to want the model to be 100% accurate - not really possible. Some degree of deviation is inevitable.

anyway, back to a question I asked you upthread but probably got lost.

the data you post shows the world is warming. You also agree that there are things people do that could affect global temperature. Irrespective of the degree to which anthropogenic warming is responsible for current warming, should we engage in some geo engineering to try to modulate the temperature change?

 flash635 18 Jan 2020
In reply to Dr.S at work:

Future temperature predictions of catastrophe only depend on temperature trends. I expect at least those to be right over the 1979-present period.

I do recall your geoeng question.  My answer is no because

1. I don't think a catastrophe is likely

2. Adaptation is a known successful strategy and almost certainly cheaper than geoengineering

Post edited at 09:54
 Mike Stretford 18 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> You said: "There's nothing wrong with it. Hadcrut4 data is in good agreement with climate models."

> and then showed this graphic:

> But the models are not actually plotted on there! Only the temperature datasets (shifted to agree) are plotted as lines.  The models are represented by the shaded area in orange. 

I know what is shown and I'm happy to discuss a more detailed plot. Let's go with one from Clive Best, a source I think you will be comfortable with.

http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/AR5-Comparison.png (green line is Hadcrut4)

from his blog

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=9252

Do you agree with Clive's statement below?

"It is clear that the warming trend lies at the lower end of the CMIP5 ensemble. Only models with lower sensitivity can adequately describe the temperature data."

From what you have posted in reply to me you seem to believe:

- Greenhouse effect is real

- There is some positive feedback but most models overestimate this and give too high a ECS value.

- You basically agree human induced climate change is real but the temperature rises will be on the lower side of the long term forecast.

Is that correct?

Post edited at 13:42
 flash635 18 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Sorry Mike, you referenced a plot that showed only 3 temperature datasets as curves but were arguing there was a good match to the climate model.  But no climate model curve was shown on the graph you referenced.

Now you are switching yet again.

Clive Best is agreeing with the basic thrust of what I have been stating here - the temperature datasets show ECS falling off the bottom of the range of rhte IPCC (which is 1.5 - 4.5).  The "climate catastrophe" predictions only arise because climate models have feedback multipliers which are at least 2x larger than any observations.  Climate models do not include multi-decadel internal variability and are conflating this in the post-1980s period with GHG effects.

Basic physics says there will be some effect from GHGs.  I think the evidence now is that lies between no feedback (ECS=1.15) to probably an upper limit of 2.0, with a best estimate below 1.5 (the distribution is heavily skewed for ECS).  As more data is acquired the ECS is getting steadily lower.  That means benign effects from GHG and no climate catastrophe.  It also clear that modern warming commenced in the 19th century, which means another mechanism must be in play because GHG effects were much too small then.

I actually suspect the effects of GHG may not even be measurable even in the long term, because the known cloud errors in models are 114x larger than any CO2 effect.  I referenced a paper on this upthread which is pretty compelling.

2
 Eric9Points 18 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

This paper concludes that recent models have been accurate in predicting temperature rise.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2019GL085378

 flash635 19 Jan 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

Ah, Zeke's freshly minted paper (ZH19). It contradicts quite a lot of established papers including Lewis and Curry. Ross Mckitrick examines its claims here:

https://judithcurry.com/2020/01/17/explaining-the-discrepancies-between-hausfather-et-al-2019-and-lewiscurry-2018/#more-25645

Ross is a well regarded statistician, Zeke is not. Reading Ross' critique, I don't  think ZH19  is going to hold up and is likely to go the way of Resplandy et al 2018. The latter paper is an example of how any old rubbish can get past peer review  as long as it supports the climate consensus.

For those worried about the somewhat fantastic ocean heat content claims from Cheng et al (2020) which made Sky News last week (BBC wisely avoided reporting it - they appear to have learned from their sensationalist but embarrassing  coverage of Resplandy 2018) - you should read Dr Roy Spencer's article at:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/01/18/new-80-year-deep-ocean-temperature-dataset-compared-to-a-1d-climate-model/

which demonstrates how the claimed warming of Cheng, even if it all were anthropogenic, results in an ECS estimate of 1.85, and drops to 1.7 when ENSO effects are taken in to account.  So the WORST case supports the low ECS argument and of course its incredibly unlikely  its all anthropogenic, in which case ECS would drop even lower from Roy's calculation.

Roy also points out the warming claim of Cheng 2020 is also much smaller than our ability to measure. And relies on filling in data by interpolation,  not actual measurements. 

So my money is still on ECS being low which means the "climate crisis" has no basis. The evidence supporting that is credible and consistent. Oh, and warming, glacier melting and sea level rise starting back in the 19th century demonstrates something else is going in Mother Nature.

Post edited at 09:24
3
 Eric9Points 19 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

Or alternatively, the increase of global temperature coincides with the industrial revolution and increasing man made CO2 emissions.

 flash635 19 Jan 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

That argument doesn't work at all - there is simply not enough forcing from GHG back then for that to be true.  As I have pointed out upthread, the warming trend 1910-1945 is almost indistinguishable from 1975-2010 trend, but the forcing 1976-2010 is around 3x larger.  So not all the warming post 1976 can be GHGs, or some other mechanism must be at work - it looks likely this is ocean internal variability.

The GHG forcings (published by the IPCC) back at the start of the industrial revolution are simply way too small.  That model is physically impossible.

Average anthropogenic forcings 1850 - 1880 = 0.06

Average anthropogenic forcings 1980 - 2011 = 2.37

So current anthropogenic forcings are 40x larger than in 19th Century.  That's 2.5% compared to now.  If your model was true, the oceans would probably have boiled by now.

Post edited at 12:24
1
 Eric9Points 19 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

No doubt.

Remarkable coincidence all the same.

 flash635 19 Jan 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

I seen to recall the detection of witches generally involved remarkable coincidences too.

 Michael Gordon 19 Jan 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

> No doubt.

> Remarkable coincidence all the same.

What, that we are getting concerned about climate change at the exact time we're alive?

 Mike Stretford 20 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> Sorry Mike, you referenced a plot that showed only 3 temperature datasets as curves but were arguing there was a good match to the climate model.  But no climate model curve was shown on the graph you referenced.

What is shown as the shaded region is the 2.5-97.5 percentiles of CIMP5 models. As you say, there are 3 temperature datasets shown, one of which you described as 'most reliable' on this thread. If you can't see the relevance of that graphic fine, others will. I'm certainly not going to waste time arguing about it.

> Now you are switching yet again.

No, I'm just not playing your game. What I am trying to do is establish what you actually believe and and get some numbers pinned down. You obliged, so we're all good on the comms

> Clive Best is agreeing with the basic thrust of what I have been stating here - the temperature datasets show ECS falling off the bottom of the range of rhte IPCC (which is 1.5 - 4.5). 

No, Clive Best, a skeptic, has suggested an ECS value of E2.5C ± 0.5C

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=8146

"If climate sensitivity is 2.5C then  global temperatures can never rise more that 2.5C above pre-industrial levels so long as CO2 levels are kept below 560 ppm. This is a far more achievable goal than many activists are calling for since it requires only gradual reductions in CO2 emissions by 2100. This then gives us time to develop realistic alternatives, which I am convinced must have a strong nuclear base."

> The "climate catastrophe" predictions only arise because climate models have feedback multipliers which are at least 2x larger than any observations.  Climate models do not include multi-decadel internal variability and are conflating this in the post-1980s period with GHG effects.

> Basic physics says there will be some effect from GHGs.  I think the evidence now is that lies between no feedback (ECS=1.15) to probably an upper limit of 2.0, with a best estimate below 1.5 (the distribution is heavily skewed for ECS).  As more data is acquired the ECS is getting steadily lower.  That means benign effects from GHG and no climate catastrophe.  It also clear that modern warming commenced in the 19th century, which means another mechanism must be in play because GHG effects were much too small then.

Pretty woolly argument you are using there... you seem to have a subjective approach to this based on ideology.

You accused me of having strong opinions on this a few days ago. Well you are wrong, I don't. I accept that the true value of ECS is unknown with large uncertainty attached to any quoted value. I really do hope it's low, but I don't know, and assumption is the mother all of feck ups!

What I do believe is that cutting CO2 emission is generally a good thing. In most cases we are talking about a finite resource, fossil fuels. Regardless of climate change, it would be considerate to our descendants not to burn through it as quickly as we can. If, for example, Clive Bests suggested ECS value is correct, it will also limit climate change to a level they can adapt to without too much pain.

Post edited at 12:56
1
 Eric9Points 20 Jan 2020
In reply to Michael Gordon:

> What, that we are getting concerned about climate change at the exact time we're alive?

No that temperatures started increasing a while after atmospheric CO2 levels started increasing.

 Max factor 20 Jan 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

I've not been following this thread, but coming to it late please correct me if I've got the jist wrong....

People on here are still disputing the link between CO2 and glacial retreat (and therefore by inference, global warming)?

I mean, clearly it's not the only factor in long term climate change, and then the multitude of factors that interact to influence, say, glacial melting are innumerous, but the mechanism for how CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas is well understood and the scientific evidence is now unequivocal.  Or so i'd have thought.

 flash635 21 Jan 2020
In reply to Max factor:

Hi Max, glacial retreat commenced back in the middle of the 19th Century, way too early to have been caused by anthropogenic global warming form GHG.

The IPCC does not agree with you - post 1950s the IPCC climate models say that everything temperature-wise is caused by anthropogenic factors.  Conveniently ignoring that warming eg 1910 - 1945 is at a rate almost identical to the warming 1975 - 2010.  IPCC says all of the latter warming is anthropogenic, but the models leave the first period of warming almost as is.  That is a clear indication climate models are overstating the effects of GHG.  I have posted here that there is a line of evidence suggesting they are over-stating by around a factor of 2x.  Which means no climate crisis and mostly benign effects from any modest warming.

I posted here in reaction to the XR nonsense about a climate crisis in order to set the record at least a bit straighter.

2
 flash635 21 Jan 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

You said: "No that temperatures started increasing a while after atmospheric CO2 levels started increasing"

Er, actually the evidence is the other way around.  Temperatures started increasing at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, way before anthropogenic GHG could have had any significant influence.   IPCC shows forcings back then are way too small to have effect.  IPCC only states that warming post-1950s is attributable to anthropogenic sources, simply ignoring the significant warming cycle 1910-1945 and the onset of warming back in the 19th century.

2
 Jim Hamilton 21 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-5aceb360-8bc3-4741-99f0-2e4f76ca02bb

Doesn't the first graphic show that it all gets going after ww2?  

 flash635 21 Jan 2020
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

Hi Jim, I have made a lot of long and detailed posts here on this thread in response to these types of questions.  Can I ask that you read those posts above to see if my view on that is clear?  If you have specific questions then, I would be happy to try and answer them.

Its just that its quite a burden on my time to keep re-posting the same basic points each time someone new arrives on the thread. I hope you understand.

I am going about to give another summary in reply to Mike Stretford which may help a bit.

3
 flash635 21 Jan 2020
In reply to Mike Stretford:

Your claim about me "Pretty woolly argument you are using there... you seem to have a subjective approach to this based on ideology." seems rather bizarre given the amount of factual and peer-reviewed references I have been posting here.  I have largely avoided ideology.  Its a sweeping statement like your entirely unjustified characterisation of Nic Lewis as a "climate denier".  Neither label is true.

My position is based on some simple facts.

1.  Climate models run with an ECS of over 3.0.  To fit observed temps they have to be scaled back by a factor of about 0.65 - 0.7, giving an effective average ECS of about 2.2.

2. Compared to satellite data (UAH), the mean climate model warming trend is approximately 2x greater than the satellite warming trend over the period 1979-present.  This is a strong indication the climate models are too hot.

3. The observed warming trends sit at the very lowest bound of the range of warming trends from climate models.  UAH sits outside the 95% confidence interval, RSS (the highest trend observational dataset) sits at about the 90% confidence level.  So observations are at the lower bound of uncertainty for climate models (and remember climate models are scaled by a factor of 0.65-0.7 to fit the temps, without this observations would be completely outside the climate model confidence intervals).

4.  Methods of estimating ECS from observational data (ie experiment, not computer models) show there is a significant body of peer reviewed literature (I mentioned 5 authors with 10 recent published scientific papers between them by way of example) where the best estimate of ECS is below 2.0 (the IPCC range is 1.5 - 4.5).  A particularly interesting result is Lewis & Curry 2018 which puts the central estimate at 1.54 [1.03, 2.76].  This is entirely consistent with my points 1, 2, and 3 above and shows observations give very low ECS estimates,  potentially falling out of the bottom of the IPCC range.

5. Warming in HadCrut4 from 1910-1945 has a trend which is almost indistinguishable from the warming trend 1975 - 2010.  The latter period is all attributed to anthropogenic causes by the IPCC climate models, but the earlier trend is largely missed by climate models and unexplained by the model forcings.  This is again evidence that the sensitivity to forcing's is much too high in climate models and that natural factors (likely internal variability in the oceans) are being conflated with GHG sensitivity post 1980s.

6. The onset of the modern warming period commenced around 1850, much too early to have been caused by GHG effects.  The onset as early as 1850 is supported by global temperature, sea level and glacier datasets.  All of those datasets can be characterised generally as being defined by a linear trend plus a quasi-periodic cycle (likely internal ocean variability) with a period of about 60 - 70 years. The issue of removing internal variability is known and referenced in methods to obtain estimates of ECS from observational data - its a known problem and factored for.

Nothing woolly or ideological in those points that I can see, but I am sure you will come back with your bombastic style and accuse me of something.

Oh - and thanks for the Leclerc/Oerlemans reference on global temperature reconstruction from the glacier length data that you provided up-thread:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00382-011-1145-7

Its a gift for me, so much appreciated!  I pointed out it actually supports the commencement of warming in the mid-19th Century but you contradicted me and were adamant it did no such thing.  This is the very first paragraph from the paper’s Discussion section:

The present glacier retreat is observed worldwide (WGMS 2008). All the temperature reconstructions presented in this article show a warming trend since the mid-19th century, resulting in a warming in the order of 0.5–1.0 K. Only a strong drying on a global scale could explain a worldwide retreat of the same magnitude. There is no independent evidence at all of such drying (Trenberth et al. 2007; Smith et al. 2009). Thus, only an increase in global temperature can explain the observed glacier retreat.”

Oops, that a pretty clear statement that agrees with what I said – modern warming commenced around 1850.  And they saved the best until last – the final sentence in the entire paper is:

According to our reconstruction, the rise of the global temperature and the temperatures on both hemispheres started between 1830 and 1850 and continued uninterrupted into the 20th century.

As I have repeatedly pointed out in posts on this thread, modern warming onset and alpine glacier retreat starts way too early to have been caused by anthropogenic forcings in accordance with the IPCC/climate model story.  Climate models appear to significantly overstate sensitivity to GHGs which means hysteria about a “climate crisis” such as posited by the author (a supporter of XR) of the head post  are unfounded.

I will be offline for a bit as I have other work to attend to, but please don't assume that my unresponsiveness means I have left the debate.

To anyone coming to this thread late (its been running since before Christmas) I would please ask that you read back over earlier posts to see if any questions to me have already been answered up-thread.  Otherwise I keep having to re-post to answer similar questions which is a little onerous as I am greatly outnumbered here!

Post edited at 10:35
3
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

It's a matter of who do you trust.

Do you trust august bodies such as the Royal Society, the Met Office, NASA, etc.?

Or do you trust some random bloke on a climbing forum thread?

It's your decision!

Post edited at 10:32
2
 flash635 21 Jan 2020
In reply to sandrow:

Appeals to authority are not science.  Ironic that the motto of the Royal Society is "Nullius in Verba" which basically translates as "take no-ones word for it".  In other words check the facts yourself.

I am not going to state my credentials here.  I doubt anyone would believe me anyway and it should be irrelevant when presenting a scientific argument.  I only ask that you read my argued points and decide for yourself if they make sense or not.  Fact check the papers referenced.  That is how science progresses.

As I have pointed out before up-thread: consensus is politics, not science.

1
In reply to flash635:

Exhaustively checking facts for oneself is not a realistic option. Are you seriously arguing that before I accept the conclusions of the Met Office, etc., I should repeat their observations, generate my own data sets, develop my own models, buy my own mips and form my own conclusions?

If you could point me to your published, peer-reviewed papers, in recognised journals I would take you seriously. Otherwise you could be cherry picking your observations to fit your biased pre-conceptions.

2
 flash635 21 Jan 2020
In reply to sandrow:

You said: "Exhaustively checking facts for oneself is not a realistic option. Are you seriously arguing that before I accept the conclusions of the Met Office, etc., I should repeat their observations, generate my own data sets, develop my own models, buy my own mips and form my own conclusions?"

No, but some due diligence might be sensible and not taking sensationalist propaganda from the likes of XR as truth (which is where this thread begins) would be a start.  Also, you don't need a supercomputer to recreate climate model outputs - they can be derived from the input forcings trivially in a spreadsheet with just linear regression.  That simple observation in itself is enough to question the climate models.

You go on to say "If you could point me to your published, peer-reviewed papers, in recognised journals I would take you seriously."

Why?  Did you take the scientists who wrote the Resplandy et al 2018 paper seriously?  The result of that paper was sensationally reported without question by the BBC and MSM with headlines of 60% greater ocean heat content than previously thought and claims from the usual hysterical parties that the climate crisis is upon us.  Do you believe that claim in the paper by Resplandy et al 2018 to be true?

Finally you say: "Otherwise you could be cherry picking your observations to fit your biased pre-conceptions."

Yes, of course I could be.  But your statement is equally applicable to the IPCC authors.  That's why due diligence is a good idea.  That's why Nullius in Verba is a good motto.  If people care enough about the "climate crisis" claims to change their entire lifestyles, I think perhaps they should care enough to invest a little time and satisfy themselves that there isn't some contradictory evidence that might show the hysteria is misplaced.  That means actively reading and evaluating the output of those who disagree, as opposed to seeking out material that simply conforms to the consensus.

Post edited at 11:48
2
 Mike Stretford 21 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> Your claim about me "Pretty woolly argument you are using there... you seem to have a subjective approach to this based on ideology." seems rather bizarre given the amount of factual and peer-reviewed references I have been posting here.  I have largely avoided ideology.  Its a sweeping statement like your entirely unjustified characterisation of Nic Lewis as a "climate denier".  Neither label is true.

> My position is based on some simple facts.

> 1.  Climate models run with an ECS of over 3.0.  To fit observed temps they have to be scaled back by a factor of about 0.65 - 0.7, giving an effective average ECS of about 2.2.

No, there are a large number of models showing a spread from ~1.5 to 4.5, also, different models are quoted with high uncertainties. As I posted Clive best gave and estimated ECS of 2.5 based on observation, and this is it, you keep dragging the value down with no apparent justification (so you seem biased).

> 2. Compared to satellite data (UAH), the mean climate model warming trend is approximately 2x greater than the satellite warming trend over the period 1979-present.  This is a strong indication the climate models are too hot.

However, most other measurements of global temperature do not.  UAH measurements are on of the most indirect, as they are derived from satellite measurements of the oxygen radiance in the microwave band. Why don't you mention satellite sea surface temperature measurements?

https://archimer.ifremer.fr/doc/00350/46163/45861.pdf

That's an obvious example of cherry picking, so again you seem biased.

> 3. The observed warming trends sit at the very lowest bound of the range of warming trends from climate models.  UAH sits outside the 95% confidence interval, RSS (the highest trend observational dataset) sits at about the 90% confidence level.  So observations are at the lower bound of uncertainty for climate models

For tropospheric measurement by MSU. Actually, all measurements (eg Hadcrut 4, NasaGistemp) do seem to be in the lower half of temperature predicted by the range of models..... but crucially, they are within the range. That could be reason for optimism (and action), or the researchers who say this is because of long term ocean temperature lag, and observed temperature will catch up, may have a point. I don't know.

> 4.  Methods of estimating ECS from observational data (ie experiment, not computer models) show there is a significant body of peer reviewed literature (I mentioned 5 authors with 10 recent published scientific papers between them by way of example) where the best estimate of ECS is below 2.0 (the IPCC range is 1.5 - 4.5).  A particularly interesting result is Lewis & Curry 2018 which puts the central estimate at 1.54 [1.03, 2.76].  This is entirely consistent with my points 1, 2, and 3 above and shows observations give very low ECS estimates,  potentially falling out of the bottom of the IPCC range.

They actually give a value of 1.76k allowing for time varying feedbacks, which they should

Here's a critique of that paper by Clive Best, urging caution

https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2018/04/27/lewis-and-curry-again/

"This doesn’t mean that climate sensitivity can’t be low (even mainstream estimates do not rule this out). It simply means that we should be cautious of assuming that it is low based on an estimate that can’t fully account for how internal variability may have influenced the path that we’ve actually followed."

That's one of the more generous critiques of that paper from a fellow climate skeptic.

> 5. Warming in HadCrut4 from 1910-1945 has a trend which is almost indistinguishable from the warming trend 1975 - 2010.  The latter period is all attributed to anthropogenic causes by the IPCC climate models, but the earlier trend is largely missed by climate models and unexplained by the model forcings.  This is again evidence that the sensitivity to forcing's is much too high in climate models and that natural factors (likely internal variability in the oceans) are being conflated with GHG sensitivity post 1980s.

I've already posted articles which rebut that claim soundly, but you are just not interested, I'm not going back.

> Its a gift for me, so much appreciated!  I pointed out it actually supports the commencement of warming in the mid-19th Century but you contradicted me and were adamant it did no such thing.  This is the very first paragraph from the paper’s Discussion section:

> Oops, that a pretty clear statement that agrees with what I said – modern warming commenced around 1850.  And they saved the best until last – the final sentence in the entire paper is:

Yes, you said modern warming commenced around 1850. That specific text is not supported by the references quoted, and certainly not the conclusions you draw. The paper also states:

"The high global averaged temperatures of the period between 1980 and 2000 are unprecedented in at least the last 400 years."

Basically, the warming trend ~1850 to ~1900 is well withing temperature fluctuations before that. It may have happened for completely different reasons to that which caused the more recent 'unprecedented' warming, we just don't know. Your whole logic on this is flawed and I'm sure you'd point that out if a climate scientist used that type of argument to support high ECS values.

In short you only seem interested in a fraction of the available data, and interpretations of, which support your claims that anthropocentric climate change will be unnoticeable. Most scientific evidence suggests otherwise but you just ignore it... that's why I have made the claims I have. 

> I will be offline for a bit as I have other work to attend to, but please don't assume that my unresponsiveness means I have left the debate.

Enjoy you time offline.

Post edited at 13:20
1
 Eric9Points 21 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> You said: "No that temperatures started increasing a while after atmospheric CO2 levels started increasing"

> Er, actually the evidence is the other way around.  Temperatures started increasing at the end of the Little Ice Age around 1850, way before anthropogenic GHG could have had any significant influence.   IPCC shows forcings back then are way too small to have effect.  IPCC only states that warming post-1950s is attributable to anthropogenic sources, simply ignoring the significant warming cycle 1910-1945 and the onset of warming back in the 19th century.

Ah, I see where you're going wrong now. CO2 levels started rising about 1780 according to the graph I saw. About twenty years after the invention of Stevenson's Rocket. If you're interested the graph was in that book called something like Global Warming Without The Hot Air.

 flash635 21 Jan 2020
In reply to Eric9Points:

The problem is you are arguing from ignorance.  The IPCC has updated the forcings for the new set of CMIP6 models due out in 2022.  The following is a table from the official series used to drive CMIP6 climate models.  I have computed the averages over each period to condense them and make them a little easier to refer to here (units W/m^2):

Period                 Mean GHG          Total Forcings          Total (excluding Volcanos)

1750-1775             -0.006                    -0.134                        -0.045

1776-1805               0.069                    -0.380                       -0.033

1806-1835                0.151                   -1.302                       -0.006

1836-1865                0.206                   -0.185                         0.055

1866-1895                0.341                   -0.276                         0.151

1896-1925                0.586                    0.118                         0.384

1926-1955                0.883                    0.586                         0.679

1956-1985                1.464                    0.610                         1.099

1986-2016                2.628                    1.900                          2.202

Negative forcing's would cause cooling.  So the IPCC view (the consensus science) is that the average net forcing (the "Total Forcings" column) is NEGATIVE all the way up to the end of the 19th Century.  But Sea Level, temps and glaciers all show warming commencing around 1850.  There is not enough GHG effect in the 19th century to cause warming of any significance (compared to the present) and even if there were it would be completely offset by volcanic activity, according to the IPCC.

Period                 Mean GHG          Total Forcings          Total (excluding Volcanos)

1910-1945               0.761                    0.433                             0.560

1975-2010               2.307                     1.453                             1.867

The temperature trend in Hadcrut4 over the period 1910-1945 is virtually identical to the trend 1975-2010.  My second little table above calculates the forcings for those periods from the IPCC numbers.  The GHG forcings ("Mean GHG") are 2.307/0.761 = 3x larger and the Total Forcings are 1.453/0.433 = 3.4x larger in the later interval 1975-2010 than the earlier period 1910-1945.  According to IPCC, the climate is totally explained by these forcings via a climate model. So how do we get almost exactly the same warming over two periods 35 years apart when the forcing is at least 3x larger?  According to IPCC physics that's impossible, yet it is observed.

Its no good talking about your little book, you need to go to the actual IPCC source of the data.  What I have shown here is the very latest numbers they are using for the next round of climate models.  They clearly show the "official consensus science" does not support warming in the 19th Century or earlier.  Yet we have actual data that says it happened, the glacier papers talk about it, sea levels started to rise. 

Could it be just possible the IPCC numbers are wrong?

Post edited at 16:45
1
 Mike Stretford 21 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> They clearly show the "official consensus science" does not support warming in the 19th Century or earlier.  

Here's one to get your teeth into

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-18-0555.1

"We are able to match the historical temperature evolution since at least 1850 in general, and succeed in reproducing both the EW and the MC period with high precision in particular, without the need to invoke unexplained internal multidecadal temperature variability as an additional driver."

The paper describes a number of factors you have not considered.

 Jim Hamilton 21 Jan 2020
In reply to flash635:

> Hi Jim, I have made a lot of long and detailed posts here on this thread in response to these types of questions.  Can I ask that you read those posts above to see if my view on that is clear?  If you have specific questions then, I would be happy to try and answer them.

"I have made a lot of long and detailed posts" - that's the problem! Why don't you reply with something pitched at the non climate scientist, without being condescending. 

1
In reply to flash635:

> a further point Karl Popper was very clear that scientific hypotheses can only be disproved (by refutation by experiment or real world data).  No hypothesis or theory can be proven true, only shown as false.  That is science.

I'm not a climatologist, but I will pick you up on this point as you previously claimed not to be "arguing from authority", though by claiming to know how "science is done" - that is exactly what you are doing.

Popper is not the last word on the scientific method, and I think the Reverend Bayes would have a thing or two to say about what can and cannot be proven.

 Michael Gordon 21 Jan 2020
In reply to Jim Hamilton:

> "I have made a lot of long and detailed posts" - that's the problem! Why don't you reply with something pitched at the non climate scientist, without being condescending. 

I'm not sure he can win there. It's hard to present a strong critique without going into quite a lot of detail. 

1
In reply to flash635:

Interestingly the Resplandy et al 2018 paper was published 31 October 2018. Resplandy published a correction 14 November 2018 and the paper was formally retracted by Nature   25 September 2019. So the dialectic worked in this case. My point still stands. Some random bloke on the internet is never going to retract their biased work-ups.

1

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...