CHRIS Turney is professor of climate change at the University of New South Wales. He recently set off on a 233-foot-long Russian-flagged ship with 70 or so colleagues to check-out the climate by following in the footsteps of famous explorer Douglas Mawson’s 1912 expedition to the Antarctic.
I’m assuming that the ship is running on diesel. So it would be incurring a “carbon debit”. Did Professor Turney make provisions to off-set this debit before he set off?
According to David Suzuki the first thing to consider before buying carbon offsets is:
“Know your carbon footprint and understand what your largest sources of emissions are. Ensure that you include all of your major emission sources, such as electricity consumption, fuel use, and travel.”
Since setting off, the ship has got stuck in ice. Three ice breaker ships have set-off to rescue it.
Should the fuel consumption of the three ice breakers also be included in Professor Turney’s carbon offset calculations?
None of this information about carbon offsets is being communicated by Professor Turney who is sending out lots of tweets and some blog posts. I’m also wondering what the Professor has discovered about climate change and the change in ice cover at the Antarctic since 1912 when Douglas Mawson ventured down there.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Prof. Turney demonstrates well that an important part of AGW extremism is the loss of the ability to be shamed by one’s hypocrisy. Or at least to hide it well.. and profitably.
Aaahahahahahahaha…. gotta laugh at this…really godda larf. Latest update is that the Chinese icebreaker is also jammed in the ice about 6kms. away. Temptingly visible but not accessible . I sent this guy Turney an email carbon copied to a few of his Unsw mates.
“Oh dear , oh dear Chris , stuck in the ice down in the Antarctic and you are getting rescued by a Chinese icebreaker ? Oh the irony. Those “polluting” Chinese emitting so much global warming causing CO2, coming to your rescue. Wow, you’ve really attracted attention here Chris where your website describes you as a scientist, explorer, writer and extrovert.. So here you are/were stuck in pack ice that you didn’t predict would be there? Hell, I could have told you that Antarctic sea ice is at record levels, why are the Aussie taxpayers funding you for such blind ignorance
So you can see Chris,( note people with carbon copy,) I’m pulling you out in front of the class as a prime example of an agenda driven, AGW indoctrinated, academic. A product of years of parroted institutionalised ignorance.
For eg. you may have forgotten that in mid-summer at the poles the sun only does something like this…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZcafg-meJA
Not exactly beating down from above like back home in Oz ,eh Chris. so you’ll have to forgive me if I think you’re looney, to tell me that CO2 drives climate.
However the purpose of this letter is to send you and the others these links of what I’ve said to Dr Roy Spencer this year…starting with something like this…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/direct-evidence-of-earths-greenhouse-effect/#comment-75584
then this…
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/a-simple-model-of-global-average-surface-temperature/#comment-77341
which then has probably caused this..
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/05/time-for-the-slayers-to-put-up-or-shut-up/#comment-78670
So there you go Chris. 2013 turned out to be unlucky for some.
Happy New Year,
Mack.
Jennifer, your site must be doing OK from me. đ OT but should have been on previous thread is that I do share Cohers despair at the winning over of the establishment to the right (correct)science. Luke says that Cohers could some day approach or be approached by a university or somesuch .Luke might be right. Until then we just soldier on, but here in NZ we’ve still got this đ ….
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2013/12/05/december-2013-open-thread/comment-page-8/#comment-172214
That was this December…. we’re up against a malfeasance of science which transcends politics of any description. Happy New year to everybody.
>”….to check-out the climate by following in the footsteps of famous explorer Douglas Mawsonâs 1912 expedition….”
Mawson was SAILING “near” the coast 83 years ago (a hard act to follow apparently – even in the MV Akademik Shokalskiy). NYT report including previous journey here:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/screenhunter_963-dec-27-18-04.gif?w=640
Turney hasn’t thought this through obviously, given his predicament. Hopefully he’ll do that now he’s got some bonus down-time.
>”Should the fuel consumption of the three ice breakers also be included in Professor Turneyâs carbon offset calculations?”
No, they should wait for a nuclear-powered icebreaker – no offset required.
I wonder who is paying for the ‘research’ ship.
What with all the media people on board I wonder how much science was intended to be done.
Yes we can report that the emissions are completely offset by the plankton bloom caused by nutrients from the ships’ sewerage. As sceptics well know crap is a powerful forcing agent.
Importantly for Australia is that less diesel does in fact get used as tractors don’t run during droughts which are contributed to already by well known circulation changes from Antarctic climate change.
Additionally the expedition will also hopefully bolster information such as knowledge of the warming and freshening throughout most of the Southern Ocean depth (Gille, 2008; Böning et al., 2008; Meijers et al., 2011), strangely missing from sceptic discussions and directly relevant to growth in winter sea ice.
Yes Luke, Prof Turney can claim that carbon credit for the lesser use of fuel due to the drought as like the logic in the rest of your rant, it is so applicable.
The only thing you got right was all the crap produced by you warmers on these junkets.
You’ll notice that these numbskull’s actions are slowly and surely being spun into heroic actions by these brave scientists etc.
They’ll probably dine out on this nonsense for the rest of their lives. Talk shows, books or perhaps a movie may be on offer. I’m sure it would all make Mawson sick.
But ya gotta laugh when you think that the UK’s chief scientist Sir David King ( yes it’s true) stated that Antarctica could be the only habitable continent left on earth by 2100.
That’s unless we took action on CAGW and reduced co2 emissions. Can you believe this idiocy from any scientist, not just any country’s chief scientist?
But to be fair James Lovelock for a time thought that the Arctic would be the last place left for humans last surviving couples to breed.
He’s since admitted that CAGW is a crock of crap and what he said was wrong. But Luke seems to believe in all sorts of unsubstantiated garbage in relation to his CAGW delusion.
And as we know he’ll even link to fake and fraudulent graphs to try and score a point. Facts and the truth mean ZIP to silly Luke. His mad cult means everything to him and fundamentalism is his badge of honour.
The earth’s climate is just a massive heat engine (Willis Eschenbach has written on this) and if the planet warms there will be less energy (not more) in the system.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/28/climate-as-a-heat-engine/#more-99994
Prof Turney!
Say after me 3 times, Prof Turney, Turney, Turney.
And here I’ve been thinking of him as Prof Turkey. Oh well, turkey is as turkey does. I was right all the time.
The closest any report comes to describing the expeditionâs original purpose is the rather inadequate explanation that it is an attempt at ârecreating Australian explorer Douglas Mawsonâs century-old voyage to Antarctica.â When Turnley is quoted he is mentioned only as a common or garden-variety âprofessorâ, not as UNSWâs official Professor of Climate Change.
Anthropogenic global warming may or may not be altering the planet, but the lack of it can certainly mess up even the best planned scientific expedition/PR offensive.
http://quadrant.org.au/opinion/doomed-planet/2013/12/cold-comfort-antarctic-warmists/
>”Iâm also wondering what the Professor has discovered about climate change and the change in ice cover at the Antarctic since 1912 when Douglas Mawson ventured down there.”
Does prompt some wonderment. This at CCG:
I suggested to Andy that, along with pondering the change in sea ice cover at the Antarctic since 1912, the MV Akademik Shokalskiy has a well stocked bar.
Unexpected downtime, an evidently unnoticed 83 yr change in sea ice cover to contemplate, and a bar – surely those are the ideal set of circumstances (even serendipitous) for a constructive research outcome?
Re sp’s quote that Turney’s expedition is ârecreating Australian explorer Douglas Mawsonâs century-old voyage to Antarctica.â
Small problem though. Mawson’s voyage the summer prior to his Dec 1930 voyage appears to have been a mineral ore sampling and land grabbing exercise:
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/screenhunter_963-dec-27-18-04.gif?w=640
âTons of rock and mineral ore were brought homeâ
“Land and islands were claimed for the Crown”
What exactly then is Turney “recreating” if the Dec 1930 voyage was most probably more of the same?
Ha ha. I wonder if the passengers who are on board flew anywhere to board the vessel, or drove? Perhaps their carbon footprint should be included. I do hope Prime Minister Abbott cancels this fool’s funding if he is getting any. He is a nuisance.
Mawson cruised right into Commonwealth Bay in early January. The 2006 hut conservation mob found a way through after a short voyage – in late October! Why doesn’t our Professor of Media Stunts just do likewise?
What could be that hard white material supposed to be stopping him? Couldn’t be ice, could it?
They are supposed to be trying to find changes in Antarctic climate that will help with the study of AGW.
Perhaps they should look at this Antarctic quote from Luke’s linked study a few days ago. Here is the quote from that study———-
” Antarctica was probably warmer than 1971â2000 for a time period as recent as ad 1671â1700, and the entire period from 141â1250 was warmer than 1971â2000. These interpretations are generally supported by the relative magnitude of recent warming in the alternative reconstructions. ” End of study quote.
So we now know that Antarctica was NATURALLY warmer than today for a period of 1109 years ( 141–1250 AD) and part of that warm period included the Med WP. Up to 1250 AD.
After that we had a cooler period in Antarctica than now but also a brief NATURAL warm period of 29 years from 1671–1700.
But importantly we know that there was a very long NATURAL warmer period than today that included the MedWP and a NATURAL colder period that matched the start of the LIA.
So what caused that NATURAL cooling and warming hundreds and thousands of years ago in Antarctica.
Seems like Gavin Schmidt and Mann like having a foot in both camps when it comes to solar forcing. Or a two bob each way bet.
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t ?????
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/28/gavin-was-for-solar-forcing-of-climate-before-he-was-against-it/#more-100003
Gosh , some of you people are so dismissive about serious science.
Don’t you know that –
“Despite the interruption to the expedition, the scientists have continued their research while stuck, counting birds in the area and drilling through the ice surrounding the ship to photograph sea life. ”
I note now that it is being described as a ‘privately funded ‘ expedition.
I am sure, when I first heard of it , there was funding by UNSW.
Who are the ‘private funders’ ?
http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/help-support-antarctic-science-and-exploration
I see here that they state it is public funded, but they want donations. They’ve got $600 out of $47,000 that they want. I think we have underwritten it all.
Whatever, it is described on one of the groups pages as private and another as public.
All about as transparent as the sea around the ship right now.
Solar is DEAD as an explanation for the modem warming. Its over
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131222161813.htm
Of course we should be funding these valuable missions – how else will we find out valuable facts that Australian rainfall decline is related to Antarctic circulation change.
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/media/news/2012/ice-core-reveals-unusual-decline-in-eastern-australian-rainfall
http://www.antarctica.gov.au/about-us/publications/australian-antarctic-magazine/2006-2010/issue-18-2010/glaciology/antarctic-ice-cores-shed-light-on-western-australian-drought
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n4/abs/ngeo761.html
The denialosphere of course wants to hush all this up with op-ed stunts.
And climate criminals want unrestrained atmospheric CO2 growth.
First way to get away with is to cut off the information sources.
Here’s how a denialist government stops valuable research – aided by sceptic denial of service attacks.
http://m.thetyee.ca/News/2013/12/23/Canadian-Science-Libraries/
Expect the same here. The barbarians are at the gates.
Hey Luke what was that about a decline in Eastern OZ rainfall?
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=rain&area=eaus&season=0112&ave_yr=T
And the majority of West OZ has seen increasing rainfall for decades. Less rainfall in SW WA could be due in part to reduction of tree cover.
Neville’s is back to his old denier tricks of averaging out regional trends. Sad sad denialism and entrenched desire to distort information.
Pity the populated and agriculturally prosperous part doesn’t enjoy the impacts.
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/trendmaps.cgi?map=rain&area=wa&season=0112&period=1900
And as a good lil’ sceptic, you would know the reason for the rainfall increase is most likely a side effect of Indonesian air pollution which will improve as technological development increases.
Yes Neville the rain bearing fronts don’t come from the ocean. As you have said you don’t know anything about science or statistics – shows eh!
I find it hard to describe this junket organised mostly by The Guardian as a publicity stunt as “a valuable mission “
Neither the people involved nor the time allocated is suggesting any such thing.
It is not even clear if it’s privately or publicly funded?
I might as well say that our flight to the Antarctic a few years ago was a “scientific” mission.
At least no public monies were involved.
I cant wait for the Climate Criminal trials to begin – really interested to hear Luke’s defense and justification for wasting billions of dollars – the poor chap does not see how sick a puppy he is. I reckon he will get off on a technicality, like insanity, and end up in a half-way house badgering derelicts about their carbon footprint.
PS Luke – when are you going to write to the Chinese and tell them to stop producing mega quantities of CO2, I mean, its a CRIMINAL act, I am sure they will heed advice from a man who knows everything about everything, oh!, and dont forget to append a list of your published papers when you do.
As an aside – I dont miss Julia Gillard spitting out the words “carbon pollution”. Is carbon a pollutant Luke?
Quote: “The barbarians are at the gates.”
You better believe it, pyjama boy.
And we have the tar warmed up & feathers ready!
https://www.google.com.au/search?q=obama's+pyjama+boy&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=TpO_Uo_rCIrIkQWVxAE&ved=0CGAQsAQ&biw=1749&bih=912
Speaking of a fool and his money easily parted, just for Luke & the ‘climate scientists’ stuck in the ice:
GOODSTUFF’S CARBON MARKETPLACE and EXCHANGE
Feeling guilty about your carbon footprint?
Do you have procrastination issues?
Do you want buy prepaid carbon credits for your next vacation?
Are you monetarily challenged by the banking calamity?
Using our exchange you can now offer carbon offset tokens to all your friends as gifts just by copying and plastering!
http://goodstuffsworld.blogspot.com.au/2012/08/goodstuffs-carbon-marketplace-and.html
sp – I’d relax you – won’t be called to any Climate Crimes Royal Commissions. They don’t want to talk to tea party screechers only domain experts. But we should well expect climate criminals like you to get 20 years for damage to the biosphere.
Is CO2 a pollutant – well try a few hours in a few 1000ppm and report back. We’ll wait here.
>”Solar is DEAD as an explanation for the modem warming. Its over”
Heh! Single-study-syndrome (H/t SkS).
BTW Luke, they use CO2-forced models that don’t actually mimic “modem warming”.
Their problem is that natural cyclicity, solar combined with ocean oscillations, DOES mimic modern warming. For example Luedecke, Hempelmann and Weiss (2013) (there are others e.g. Raspopov (2008) ‘The influence of the de Vries (âŒ200-year) solar cycle on climate’). From a guest essay by H. Luedecke and C.O.Weiss:
And (same link):
And (same link)
So the problem with CO2 “forcing” Luke, is, no ~200 yr or ~65 year periodicity.
You might also consider the quasi-1000+ year solar cycle e.g. ClĂ©roux et al (2012), ‘High-resolution sea surface reconstructions off Cape Hatteras over the last 10 ka’. See:
‘Emphatic Blow To CO2 Warmists â New Study Shows A Clear Millennial Solar Impact Throughout Holocene’
http://notrickszone.com/2012/03/02/emphatic-blow-to-co2-warmists-new-study-shows-a-clear-millennial-solar-impact-throughout-holocene/
Given that c. 1986 was the peak of the modern solar Grand Maximum 1.e. the last Grand Maximum peak was just over 1000 years ago, also corresponding to temperature e.g. Moberg et al (2006), and that solar activity measured by isotope proxies revealed the end of the 20th century was the highest activity in 1200 years, see:
‘A History of Solar Activity over Millennia’
Ilya G. Usoskin (2012)
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/13/paper-demonstrates-solar-activity-was-at-a-grand-maxima-in-the-late-20th-century/
Also given Shapiro et al (2012) found a 6 W.m2 variation between the LIA solar Grand Minimum, also corresponding to temperature, and the modern Grand Maximum then altogether a pronouncement based on one single paper that “Solar is DEAD” would appear to be a little premature.
And don’t forget (before you link to an SkS “debunking”) as others do, or are completely ignorant of, the planetary solar-ocean-atmosphere system thermal lag calculated most significantly by various methods as 10, 12, or 14 years (Scafetta/Abdussamatov/Trenberth) i.e. we wont observe the full effects of the weakest 11 yr solar cycle in 100 years (the current SC 24) for at least a decade – that’s AFTER 2023 Luke. See:
‘Sun’s Solar Maximum of 2013 Is Weakest in 100 Years’
http://www.space.com/21937-sun-solar-weather-peak-is-weak.html
Keep in mind too, that the IPCC’s AR5 model ensemble didn’t parameterize ANY solar variation after the beginning of the 21st century i.e. they held solar constant at early 2000s 11 yr cycle levels. But now solar output is plummeting and they haven’t accounted for it (or ocean oscillations), temperature is not responding to CO2 forcing as predicted, and they’re scrabbling for explanations. The German newspaper Speigel rates this prediction/observation discrepancy as one of the top 10 science stories of 2013.
>”Is CO2 a pollutant â well try a few hours in a few 1000ppm and report back. Weâll wait here.”
“We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels”
â US Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer quoting US Navy submarine service.
From:
‘Claim: CO2 makes you stupid? Ask a submariner that question’
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-stupid-as-a-submariner-that-question/
Answer: No, CO2 is not a “pollutant”.
Richardc from NZ you’ve given Luke a bit to ponder, but be careful if he sends you a graph or other info because it could be total BS. That’s the way he works.
>âSolar is DEAD as an explanation for the modem warming. Its overâ
Meanwhile, IPCC AR5 Chapter 10 Detection and Attribution co-author and CO2-centric solar specialist Mike Lockwood has just upped his probability of looming Dalton Minimum conditions in around 20 years from 5% to 30% after analysis of weak SC 24 levels.
âThe report of my death was an exaggerationâ- Mark Twain.
Back on topic – no southern polar region warming for 35 years despite increasing CO2 emissions:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c019b034e608b970c-pi
-0.04°C/century trend.
The purpose of the Turney expedition is âto discover and communicate the environmental changes taking place in the southâ.
Presumably, a -0.04°C/century temperature change is not one of those to be discovered or communicated by the expedition.
Antarctica has been gaining ice for the last 150 years and certainly further increase in ice accumulation since 1960.
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/new-paper-finds-antarctica-has-been.html
Let’s hope Turney starts to wake up in a hurry.
>”….be careful if he sends you a graph or other info because it could be total BS”
Yes thanks Neville. I do anticipate one particular SkS graph but it does actually have (some, it’s a selective dataset – PMOD) validity. The conclusions SkS draw from it (as do the likes of AGW solar go-to person Joanna Haigh) are not valid however. They demand an instantaneous atmospheric response to very minor solar change 1986 – 2008/9 but they ignore thermal lag via the ocean and very major bicentennial/millennial solar change which is only just now in 2013 starting to kick in after the 1950 – 2009 Grand Maximum ended.
Hence my preemptive advise to Luke:
“And donât forget (before you link to an SkS âdebunkingâ) as others do, or are completely ignorant of, the planetary solar-ocean-atmosphere system thermal lag……..”
Richard – solar cycles are the last refuge of stats shonks. Get real. Solar is plummeting – hahahahahhaa
The PDO doesn’t have a fixed cycle either – try harder. It’s at best a quasi-periodic oscillation
As for “the cooling hype” – solar output is “plummeting” – pffft !
” NASA’s Marty Mlynczak, a solar expert from Langley’s Climate Science Branch, said the weak solar cycle had cooled the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, but that it had no known implications for the climate. âThe effects of this right now on what we have shown on the thermosphere have no known effects on the troposphere,â he stated. âEven though the amount of energy is a lot, when you average it over the globe, it is really milliwatts per square meter, where as the climate system is driven by hundreds of watts per square meter. So there is really no impact that we know of or any way to amplify that energy coming in to make it have any kind of an impact on the Earth’s climate. So it really is an issue for the upper atmosphere alone,â he explained.”
“no southern polar region warming for 35 years despite increasing CO2 emissions:” of course and for good reason – try getting minimally updated on regional circulation changes induced by rising troposoheric GHGs and stratospheric ozone depletion
And of course some of Antarctica is gaining ice – but where? what you’d expect from an enhanced hydrological cycle
The military as evidence – hmmmm – http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf
Of course CO2 is a pollutant.
A very interesting post by Willis Eschenbach on the planet’s response to energy entering the system.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/28/the-thermostatic-throttle/#more-100016
wELL I DON’T USUALLY GIVE ADVICE BUT AS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE COMMITTED
GREEN ACTIVISTS LIKE PROFESSOT TURNKEY SHOULD:
#stay home @ holiday time.
# ride a bike ter work
# eat local – really local
# drink local – really local
– no French Champagne @ New Year – wot’s ter celebrate anyway?
#be miserable.
“Additionally the expedition will also hopefully bolster information such as knowledge of the warming and freshening throughout most of the Southern Ocean depth (Gille, 2008; Böning et al., 2008; Meijers et al., 2011), strangely missing from sceptic discussions and directly relevant to growth in winter sea ice.”
That would explain the increase in sea ice I suppose:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080421111622.htm
Indeed Cohenite http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20132910-24954-2.html
Beth back to denier verballing – who said he’s a committed green activist?
Remember this? Such high hopes fer the global warmists.
http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2013/s3898858.htm
From luke’s link:
“The take home messages is that while the increase in total Antarctic sea ice area is relatively minor compared to the Arctic, it masks the fact that some regions are in strong decline.”
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Black is white, might is right and global warming is shite.
MSM Glosses Over Irony of Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice
“Somewhere far, far to the south where it is summer, a group of global warming scientists are trapped in the Antarctic ice. If you missed the irony of that situation, it is because much of the mainstream media has glossed over that rather inconvenient bit of hilarity.
So what was the exact mission of these scientists?
…The current crop of explorers are hoping to document some of the same data and compare them to Mawson’s numbers, “using the twist of modern technology,” Turney told National Geographic earlier this month.
As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests, particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic.
Ah, so now we see why the MSM reluctance to flat out state why the scientists are in the Antarctic. Anything to avoid an inconvenient (but accurate) headline like this:
GLOBAL WARMING SCIENTISTS TRAPPED IN ANTARCTIC ICE”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2013/12/28/msm-glosses-over-irony-global-warming-scientists-trapped-antarctic-ice#ixzz2oqmwbKlC
Yeah sp, they just don’t geddit. It’s a scream.
But ol’ Steve gets it good an’ proper:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/announcing-a-polar-ice-meeting/
It’s all that stratified DEEP HEAT wot dun it.
Oh, the irony ! Oh, the embarrassment !
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/28/scientists-need-to-average-their-way-out-of-the-ice/
>”Solar is plummeting â hahahahahhaa”
Yes it is Luke (jokes on you).
August 2013 SC 24 TSI 1361.35 W.m2 (close to max):
http://climate4you.com/images/TSI%20LASP%20Since2003.gif
Compare that to the SC 23, 22, and 21 maximums all at at least 1362.1 (about 0.75 W.m2 higher):
http://klimasnakk.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/model_composite_tsi.jpg
But the bicentennial component is a line tracing the SC minimums (not the maximums). The following Abdussamatov (2012) graph (different scale than above) illustrates the planetary energy “deficit” now developing in the bicentennial TSI component since the Grand Maximum around 1986:
http://nextgrandminimum.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/figure-2-tsi-variations.png?w=693
That energy “deficit” (~ 0.75 W.m2 and widening rapidly) is energy not now available to maintain planetary temperature levels that were observed up to the mid 2000s. Consequently, in combination with negative PDO/ENSO consistent with Leudecke et al (2013), globally averaged temperature in the 2nd decade of the 21st century is already tracking cooler than the 1st decade (search “Climate Bet For Charity” for update).
>”The PDO doesnât have a fixed cycle either â try harder. Itâs at best a quasi-periodic oscillation”
Yes exactly Luke, I didn’t say it was a fixed cycle. That’s what “~65 year periodicity” means. Note the “~” symbol. But where’s the ~65 year CO2 periodicity?
>”As for âthe cooling hypeâ â solar output is âplummetingâ â pffft !
See above.
>â NASAâs Marty Mlynczak, a solar expert from Langleyâs Climate Science Branch, said the weak solar cycle had cooled the upper atmosphere, the thermosphere, but that it had no known implications for the climate. âThe effects of this right now on what we have shown on the thermosphere have no known effects on the troposphere,â he stated. âEven though the amount of energy is a lot, when you average it over the globe, it is really milliwatts per square meter, where as the climate system is driven by hundreds of watts per square meter. So there is really no impact that we know of or any way to amplify that energy coming in to make it have any kind of an impact on the Earthâs climate. So it really is an issue for the upper atmosphere alone,â he explained.â
Poor Marty is about as clueless as it gets and certainly no “solar expert”. Rather than “milliwatts per square meter” (0.001 watts), solar change as above is ~ 0.75 W.m2 over only 27 years (let alone 6 W.m2 over 400 years – Shapiro et al). That’s far greater than aGHG forcing over the same 27 yr period using the IPCC’s expression dF = 5.35ln(C/Co) – work that out for yourself Luke.
As for Marty’s “the climate system is driven by hundreds of watts per square meter”. The climate system is right down to the planetary boundary layer (PBL) where solar energy is absorbed by the largest heat sinks (oceans, and to a much lessor degree, land). Only at midday in the tropics is there potentially about 1000 W.m2 available at the surface – nothing at night. Observations however, average out at just under 300 W.m2 in the tropics (global average 161 W.m2 – Trenberth and Fasullo). Fig 1 of the following paper shows daily tropical TSI even less than 300 W.m2:
‘Surface Solar Irradiance in the Central Pacific during Tropic Heat: Comparisons between in Situ Measurements and Satellite Estimates’
Gautier (1988)
http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~gautier/CV/pubs/Gautier_Tropic-Heat_JC_1988.pdf
Note that the ~ 0.75 W.m2 reduction is a global AVERAGE over every square metre of the entire planet PER SECOND i.e. it will be greater at the equator, less at the poles. Even at 160 (global) or 300 (tropics) – not Marty’s “hundreds of watts” – the reduction means LESS energy per second is reaching the surface. Over a period of years this adds up (the opposite to the previous accumulation).
>âno southern polar region warming for 35 years despite increasing CO2 emissions:â of course and for good reason â try getting minimally updated on regional circulation changes induced by rising troposoheric GHGs and stratospheric ozone depletion”
Oh no, NOT “of course” at all Luke. That is NOT what the IPCC’s been saying since 2001 at least.
IPCC TAR 2001 (see projected temperature increase 90S/1000 hPa):
Houghton, ed. (2001) Figure 9.8: Multi-model annual mean zonal temperature change (top), zonal mean temperature change range (middle) and the zonal mean change divided by the multi-model standard deviation of the mean change (bottom) for the CMIP2 simulations (Unit: °C).
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig9-8.htm
>”And of course some of Antarctica is gaining ice â but where? what youâd expect from an enhanced hydrological cycle”
Again, NOT what the IPCC’s been saying Luke.
IPCC AR4 2007:
“Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic under all SRES scenarios”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains3-2-2.html
>The military as evidence â hmmmm [link to ‘Health Risk Evaluation for Carbon Dioxide (CO2)]”
Your link corroborates the military Luke – well done!
Table 1 Agency Standards for CO2 in the Workplace.
Low end CO2 Concentration (ppm)1: 5,000 TWA [Time Weighted Average]
High-end CO2 Concentration (ppm)2: 30,000 STEL [Short Term Exposure Limit]
1Applies to CO2 concentration in the workplace considered safe for a 40-hour week.
2 Based on a 10-minute period for NIOSH and a 15-minute period for OSHA and ACGIH.
http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf
>”Of course CO2 is a pollutant.”
Apparently not for submariners Luke, or 40-hour week office workers breathing each others respiration. Or crop yields up to 1,200 to 2,000 ppm in greenhouses, or greenhouse workers as above, and below here:
So not only is CO2 not toxic (“humans can work safely at these elevated CO2 levels”) it actually increases crop growth and yields i.e. our food sources. Turns out, rather than CO2 being a “pollutant”, it is actually beneficial to our food production and safe at the elevated levels of submarines, offices, and greenhouses.
I would also point out that CO2 is a COOLANT – refrigerant code R744. In other words, CO2 is a very efficient energy transfer medium which in the thermosphere acts to transfer the massive amounts of radiative energy coming in from CME events back out to space and in the troposphere is part of surface to space radiative energy transfer along with sensible heat transfer (both cooling the surface).
” As may be expected, global warming might play a role in this, he suggests, particularly with respect to melted ice in the East Antarctic.”
Uhuh , is it the possibility of diamonds which drives the secret private funding ?
http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/australian-scientists-say-telltale-rock-kimberlite-could-be-clue-to-diamonds-in-antarctica/story-fn5fsgyc-1226785435494
Funny if the secret was Gina or someone. It was an Aussie who found it .
We need to go to East Antarctica to check out the facts found on this ” mission ”
Maybe I am just too cynical.
Anyway Cohenite when are you giving BoM and CSIRO the big seminar. Probably not game.
Luke , the seminar would be the same as Princess Pennywongs hearing. They good guys would walk in a secret entrance together, lecture the ignorant “deniers” and leave . Then the highly educated press gallery would proceed to ridicule the stupid uneducated experts . How does it go ? ‘bogan , rednecks’ ( Luke et al 1999- 2014 )
Or have you forgotten ?
Hey Luke – do you still say CO2 is a pollutant?
Don’t pick on me luke, RichardC now owns your backside; be snotty with him.
So I guess the Sceptic Party is unsure of it’s facts then? Otherwise like Barry Marshall they would take the collective enlightenment to a mainstream conference and defend it. Instead of simply undertaking ongoing stunts.
Amazing Mawson in his little wooden boat can get to Commonwealth Bay in 1912 while the Russian liner, The Snow Dragon Icebreaker and the Australian Icebreaker can’t get within 60 kilometers in 2013?
Must be the hidden heat hiding in the deep Pacific Ocean causing the FAST ice to surround the Climate Scientists boat.
Peer review seems to be going cold on this one? LOL.
I think we’ll take Marty’s advice over a sceptic anyday. And we’re up to AR5 and with a bit more literature. Also the short term isn’t the long term. Try harder.
Of course the “plummeting energy” levels probably help explain November’s temperatures.
sp – of course CO2 isn’t a pollutant in the classic sense – only silly sceptics would buy into such a discussion.
Gee Luke – I didn’t know there was a non-classical definition of pollution.
I also think you need to explain why you accept Martys advice over a sceptic …. especially when the sceptic is correct.
Luke .. you sound like your fundamental has taken a pounding – I think the next few days of rescuing a global warming scientists from Antarctic ice is going to be fun, but maybe not so much fun for you.
>”I think weâll take Martyâs advice over a sceptic anyday.”
I’m just relaying the news Luke, it’s solar specialists the world over that are reporting the weak SC 24 e.g solar physicist Dr David Hathaway of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Centre, IPCC solar physicist Dr Mike Lockwood at UK’s Reading University, or Russian Academy of Science’s Dr Khabibullo Abdusamatov. Want more? Penn, Livingston, Howe, Hill, Pesnell, De Jager, Duhau etc
And Marty would do well to read the slew of literature consistently predicting at least Dalton Minimum conditions in the coming decades given the solar recession now underway.
>”And weâre up to AR5 and with a bit more literature.”
So you’re conceding the IPCC’s 2001 Antarctic projections were wrong Luke? No alarm after all? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions have no warming effect (let alone “amplified” warming effect) in the Antarctic? Prof Turney will be very happy to hear this good news when he gets back I’m sure.
WUWT has a good coverage of the stranded cruise ship.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/29/saving-the-antarctic-scientists-er-media-er-activists-er-tourists-trapped-by-sea-ice/#more-100034
Richard c NZ you’ll find Lukey doesn’t give a stuff about inconvenient truths/facts and he’ll just switch to a new issue or flood the blog with a heap of links that he hasn’t bothered to read or understand AGAIN.
His latest linked study is a good example. He told me it supported Mann’s HS nonsense, but it showed a warmer Antarctica ( 141–1250 AD) and a Med wp ( up to 1250) and a LIA as well. Ya gotta laugh.
And his NH has a warming today that is only 0.5c above the temp of the last 500 years. But the dooozy is that the study shows 1940–1970 warming is greater than the 1970– 2000 warming. So much for increased co2 causing more warming. But it backs up my link to the Briffa, Vinther, Jones 2006 Greenland temp study.
But failing his link flooding mode he always resorts to foul personal abuse.
According to the AAE’s “Explorer’s Message” sea ice is “disappearing due to climate change” but “building up” where they are “here” (my bold):
http://www.news.com.au/national/stricken-russian-ship-mv-akademik-shokalskiy-with-aussie-scientists-aboard-is-playing-the-waiting-game-in-antarctica/story-fncynjr2-1226791671102
Also at Steve Goddard’s:
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/12/29/scientists-trapped-in-record-sea-ice-announce-that-it-is-disappearing/
The AAE might check November 2013 Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/NSIDC%20GlobalArcticAntarctic%20SeaIceArea.gif
Apparently sea ice measured in millions of square kilometres is a disappearance.
I notice too that “change” is applied to naturally occurring phenomena but attributed to “climate change” i.e. doublespeak conflating natural process with anthropogenic causation and hoping no-one will notice. The uninformed wont notice of course, to them, by now, after all the indoctrination, any climatic change has human causation.
Hey luke, why aren’t you down there with Prof Turney and the rest of the intrepid lunatics looking for the lost ice? Piker!
Great stuff; it should be front-page news; Alarmist scientists looking for missing ice trapped in …something!
Luke?
” of course CO2 isnât a pollutant in the classic sense ”
PARDON?????!!!!!!!
SURELY you jest?
Jo Nova has a story from today’s OZ about the NSW govt telling councils to use commonsense when advising residents about future SLR.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/ipcc-science-on-sea-levels-dumped-by-an-australian-state-government/#more-32476
Too much notice has been taken of the hysterical projections from the IPCC, CSIRO, Gore, Flannery etc and each council should now calculate their own risk.
According to the Watson study SLR has decelerated so it’s about time these fools started to wake up.
The Bolter provides a comprehensive link to the trapped cruise ship saga. Very good points made about the silly dummies involved.
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/warmists_trapped_by_irony_off_antarctica/#commentsmore
You can go to the govt link and watch the video taken by Mawson in 1912.
Luke,
just in case you don’t understand my incredulous reaction to your earlier comment. . . here is a simple question for you.
Was it ‘sceptics’ (silly or otherwise) who coined the terms ‘carbon pollution’ , ‘climate criminals’ & etc?
>âAnd weâre up to AR5″
Yes we are, and it gets awkward for the IPCC because now they’re presenting “near-term” projections for the first time in their assessment reports:
“Twenty-year average changes for the near-term (2016â2035), for mid-term (2046â2065), and for the long-term (2081â2100) are given, relative to a reference period of 1986â2005”
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_AnnexI.pdf
It will be easy to track whether 2016â2035 is looking like being realistic – or not, keeping in mind that the 27 year satellite Antarctic trend is -0.04°C/century (-0.004°C/decade, -0.1 C absolute over 2.7 decades) from up-thread.
Figures AI-76 to AI-79, p.80â83 [p.82-85 pdf]: Antarctica
Figure AI.76: Top 3 left: time series of temperature change relative to 1986â2005 averaged over land grid points 4 in Antarctica (90â50S) in DecemberâFebruary. Top right: same for sea grid points. Thin lines denote one 5 ensemble member per model, thick lines the CMIP5 multi-model mean.
Figure AI.77: Top 3 left: time series of temperature change relative to 1986â2005 averaged over land grid 4 points in Antarctica (90â50S) in JuneâAugust.
Figures AI.78 & 79: precipitation
They’re still projecting Antarctic warming in AR5 Luke (AI.76 & 77), except this time for a term starting specifically at 2016. That observed -0.004°C/decade cooling trend has 2 years to change sign for the model projections to have any validity.
No mention of “global warming scientist trapped by antarctic ice” on Skeptical Science or Realclimate.
Luke – get onto to them and tell them to lift their game – they will lose their “sciencey”status if they dont report the remarkable fact that:
“Sea ice is disappearing due to climate change, but here ice is building up”.
And get onto “Ripleys Believe it or not” while you are at it.
Here is the Royal Society graphs of all the models for SLR as used by the IPCC showing Antarctica ( negative SLR) and Greenland (positive SLR).
This is for the next 300 years or until 2300, so where is this dangerous SLR to come from I wonder? Both Antarctic and Greenland account for about 99% of the planetâs ice with Antarctica 89% and Greenland 10%.
http://rsta.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/364/1844/1709/F4.large.jpg
The much larger Antarctica will be gaining ice for at least the next 300 years according to their own models.
sp or Debs like a weed can be any plant out of place and analogously a pollutant can be any substance where too much of it is not wanted e.g. even water and common salt. Perhaps you’d like to define a pollutant? I assume you’d like to say that CO2 is a plant food, beer bubbles, and one exhales it, so how can it be a pollutant. Well if it’s causing unwanted climate changes as a radiative forcing agent, one might argue that it is a pollutant – however of course faux sceptics would disagree and therefore in their eyes it wouldn’t be – would it? silly argument though.
sp as for Marty – if you look up his expertise and career I think nuff said. I’ll let you line up your expertise against his as homework.
Richard there’s plenty of Antarctic climate change. Do try to get minimally updated with the issue. Such a trite analysis.
As for the big cooling – well let’s see – for now very little to bedwet about but I guess E&E may run with it as they done previously with Archibald’s erudite 2006 paper. Who would know.
Meanwhile in the real world – and given your admiration of other author experts I’m happy to have Lockwood 2012 Surv Geophys DOI 10.1007/s10712-012-9181-3 and Wang and Dickinson, PNAS, 2013, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1311433110
Pity about the battery but the plummeting much have been very sudden like – causing all this warmth – hohoho http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/total_solar_irradiance_plots/images/tim_level3_tsi_24hour_640x480.png
Will faux sceptics bang on about the ice cracking as fast as it occurred.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-12-29/cracks-appearing-in-ice-around-stranded-ship-antarctica/5177708
Ice cracking high summer off Commonwealth Bay? BIG cracks according to our ABC. Maybe not enough to enable our Professor of Dopey Stunts to just cruise on to Cape Denison like Mawson did, but enough to give hope of rescue.
Golly. It’s better than we thought. I mean, the disappearance of summer polar ice is worse than we thought but the hope of rescue from excessive summer polar ice is better than we thought. I mean….
Aw, you know what I mean.
>”Of course the âplummeting energyâ levels probably help explain Novemberâs temperatures.”
I assume you’re alluding to the GISS/NCDC outlier duo’s “warmest ever November” pronouncement Luke. Suggest you check UAH, RSS, and HadCRUT4 November anomalies too before you get overexcited.
BTW (1), GISTEMP November 2013 only actually equaled October 2005, rather than being anything extraordinary.
BTW (2), Have you forgotten already the 10+ year planetary sun-ocean-atmosphere system thermal lag I introduced up-thread?
The significant effects are NOT instantaneous (contrary to SkS, Joanna Haigh, and other ignorati), the full effects of current lower solar input to the planetary system will not be observed until AFTER 2023 i.e. about 10+ years from now. The 21st century pause/hiatus/stasis is more a consequence of negative phase PDO/ENSO (and maybe cloudiness/aerosols), I don’t recall any solar specialists predicting even minor observable solar-driven effects to show up in temperature before at least 2014 i.e. expect minor effects from then on but more significant cold events from mid 2020s onwards.
But note that even during the bitterly cold (in NH) Maunder Minimum (Bosphorus froze solid enough to walk on at Constantinople/Istanbul) it was not ALL cold ALL of the time, just that cold was the predominant regime. The first snowfalls this year in over century at Jerusalem and Cairo (no fun for 2 million Syrian refugees either) are merely a harbinger of what can happen if that type of regime does actually set in for some time.
BTW (3), Not for no reason did the UKMO revise its decadal forecast (now only 5 years out to 2017) downwards in 2012 (surreptitiously published on Christmas Eve 2012).
No wasn’t just GISTEMP/NCDC actually. Satellites of course don’t exactly measure the same thing as those living on the ground.
But at least we do agree on PDO/ENSO with some aerosols /clouds for now.
And so now it’s “going to be a while” eh – mid 2020s onwards …. hmmmm OK – we’ll see
The recent cold air outbreaks really means nothing. Could even be an AGW induced circulation change. Who would know – you’d need one of them thar models. When it happens regularly write it up.
As Lockwood says on solar research – so very much has been written. However there are enough quasi-periodic cycles in the climate system to be able to find pseudo cycles where there are none. So statistically having one’s self on with advanced curve fitting is an ever present danger. Lockwood is well aware.
I actually don’t expect the IPCC to make 100% correct predictions. They’re only supposed to be reviewing the literature as best that can be done. It’s a question of whether you think the broad outcomes are correct and the level of risk is high enough. I do and I’m pro new-generation nuclear as the preferred solution pathway, of course not without many issues.
I think Marty’s expertise was put up against other experts’ expertise not sp’s
There is a slight difference!
>”Pity about the battery but the plummeting much have been very sudden like â causing all this warmth â hohoho [link to SORCE 2003 – 2013]”
You are a jolly Santa Luke, but you obviously still don’t understand that “all this warmth” of SC 24 maximum is less than the preceding SC 23, 22, and 21 maximums (and the minimum at 2008/9 is less than the preceding minimums too – see bicentennial component below). If you had been paying attention you would have seen that I had already linked to that SORCE plot up-thread here:
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2013/12/carbon-off-setting-an-expedition-to-the-antarctic/?cp=all#comment-545853
In which I made a comparison of the 2003 – 2013 period (your link period) to 1975 – 2010. Repeated here again for your benefit Luke (hopefully this time):
But now that you’ve got a handle on planetary thermal lag and bicentennial TSI component (you do understand those now don’t you Luke?), you wont be foolish enough to impute 2013 TSI to 2013 GAT will you?
Don’t want to crowd in on your turf Neville but this is worth a read, it explains a lot about someone here.
Peer Review; Last Refuge of the (Uninformed) Troll
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
The Luke Approved Book of Definitions for Sceptics and Deniers Vol 1:
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted water
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted salt
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted C02
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted Cane Toads
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted rabbits
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted flies
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted crown of thorn starfish
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted rain
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted wind
Sceptic = anybody who does not agree that excessive and unwanted anything is pollution
Denier = anybody who does not agree that excessive and unwanted anything is pollution
As for Marty – its not about lining up his expertise against mine, its whether he is talking sense about solar issues – I think enough evidence has been presented to demonstrate he is talking rubbish.
You are losing badly Luke, your BS has been called and you have no real response – must be that your fundamental is getting a bit sensitive?
>”Iâm happy to have Lockwood 2012″
Are you happy to have Lockwood 2013?
Pretty much in agreement what I’ve been on about up-thread. Science progresses Luke, even that of CO2-centric solar physicists like Mike Lockwood.
Luke?
Surely you are jesting?
“sp or Debs like a weed can be any plant out of place and analogously a pollutant can be any substance where too much of it is not wanted e.g. even water and common salt. ”
Go back to the recent thread re the GM Maize Rat studies and look at how many people (whom you consider silly sceptics and deniers) have already pointed that particular fact out! . . . and it wasn’t just about the rats BTW.
I will also note that after sooking that I didn’t answer a question at an earlier thread (as general as they come) you decided not to answer my very specific and very simple question here:
“Was it âscepticsâ (silly or otherwise) who coined the terms âcarbon pollutionâ , âclimate criminalsâ & etc?”
Was that too difficult for you Luke?
maybe try this way:
Who started using terms like ‘carbon pollution’ ,’climate criminals’ & etc in the media?
a) deniers
b) sceptics
c) AGW celebs
PAGES2K says there was no globally synchronous multi-decadal Little Ice Age. There is no current alarming trend. And Lockwood says in his conclusion (2012):
“Thus, these predictions show that continued solar decline will do little to alleviate anthropogenically driven global warming. However, the decline should do much to end the debate about the fraction of
global warming that can be attributed to solar change. For the ïŹrst time since about 1900,
long-term solar and anthropogenic trends are now in opposite directions. Non-robust ïŹts
will fail sooner rather than later because of the change in solar behaviour. Thus, the next
few years will give us much better estimates of the solar contribution to both global and
regional climate change. For global temperature rise, there is every indication that these
new estimates will, if anything, be smaller that previous estimates. On the other hand, there
are indications that some regional climates will be more susceptible to solar changes
(Lockwood et al. 2011a, b).”
Backing up my previous cite on weak TSI influence
Tom Wigley 2010 concludes…
“The climate response to TSI forcing is only weakly dependent on the climate
sensitivity.
Model simulations suggest that the effect of the Maunder Minimum on global mean
temperatures must be very small â perhaps negligible.
Results of model simulations depend on assumptions regarding the
âsecularâ TSI trend (i.e., low-frequency changes that are not directly
associated with the solar cycle). They are, however, only weakly dependent
on these assumptions.
Over the 20th century, the total TSI-induced temperature trend is either near
zero (no secular term), 0.06 degC (Wang et al. trend), or 0.12 degC (Lean et al.
trend). In all cases the contribution to the observed warming trend is small.
For the early 20th century (1910 to 1940) warming trend, the TSI influence is
also very small. The most likely cause of this warming is a change in NADW
formation rate.”
But in any case in terms of risk Gerry Meehl warns us that while a full blown Grand Solar Minimum is enough to slow down and delay AGW – it is merely forestalling the inevitable.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50361/abstract
So Richard much speculation – nothing is cut and dried.
Oh Debs take a powder – when you complain about alarmists, water melons and bedwetters equally I’ll take you seriously.
And dear sp – trying so hard ….
“Pollution = Excessive and unwanted water – possibly – see CSG dewatering or mine dewatering
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted salt – yep ask irrigation systems affected by salinity
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted C02 – possibly in context
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted Cane Toads – no that’s a pest species
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted rabbits – ditto
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted flies – maybe not – could be natural
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted crown of thorn starfish – – no a natural pest BUT YES caused by N fertiliser pollution
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted rain – no that’s just too much rain
Pollution = Excessive and unwanted wind – no that’s a storm
>”Richard thereâs plenty of Antarctic climate change”
Yes I know there is Luke, And Chris Turney will learn a bit too by his predicament, hopefully, when he compares it to Mawson’s three season ease of passage in 1910, 11, and 12.
But it’s natural process rather than human causation.
Even the IPCC’s global anthro attribution is not what it seems, the AR5 attribution period for their 95% confidence is the 6 decade period 1951 – 2010. But only 2 of those decades (1980 – 2000) exhibited any warming whatsoever, see AR5 SPM Figure 1(a):
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/science/files/2013/12/climate-graphs.jpg
And curiously, the further their models have diverged from observations the more the IPCC’s confidence has grown:
http://www.energyadvocate.com/gc1.jpg
Now that the CO2-forced models have reached a point in time where any continued temperature flatlining means observations will break out of the 95% model confidence bounds, there has to be a re-assessment of human attribution to climate change (a link which is actually the UN FCCC/IPCC mandate) – also the IPCC’s climate sensitivity and radiative forcing methodologies.
LULUC – precipitation yes (maybe temperature), aGHGs – temperature/precipitation no.
>”So Richard much speculation â nothing is cut and dried.”
I agree. But you CANNOT support a weak TSI influence case by citing papers that deploy CO2-forced models that are a) proving to be invalid, b) don’t realistically parameterize solar e.g. 100% UV variation within the spectrum, and up to 6 W.m2 change over 400 yrs, and c) neglect natural variation e.g. oceanic oscillations.
The IPCC, in Chapter 8: Radiative Forcing, cites Jones (Gareth not Phil), Lockwood, and Stott (2012) to support their weak TSI influence case but it’s a CO2-forced modeling study with woeful solar scenarios. They discount (throw out) Shapiro et al (2011) because they don’t think there’s a possibility that their results and conclusions could be anywhere near realistic. Instead they opt for least-case scenarios that don’t rock the boat.
Re Mike Lockwood, co-author of JL&S12, see my previous comment that clearly demonstrates he’s radically changed his ideas in 2013 since 2011/12. Now he’s on-side with what he discounted previously – including Shapiro. I note the Shapiro et al title is enough to have it quietly removed from public consciousness by the IPCC:
‘A new approach to long-term reconstruction of the solar irradiance leads to large historical solar forcing’
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1102/1102.4763v1.pdf
“Large historical solar forcing” is anathema to the IPCC – they can’t allow it.
“âLarge historical solar forcingâ is anathema to the IPCC â they canât allow it.” nope that’s just sledging – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
“neglect natural variation e.g. oceanic oscillations.” nope they don’t – you argue about the adequacy but they don’t neglect these factors !
e.g. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008JCLI2552.1 including an interaction between the IPO and AGW
On Antarctic climate change – it doesn’t have to be all tropospheric GHGs – there’s also stratospheric ozone depletion in its own right. This goes back to Thompson and Solomon 2002; Shindell and Schmidt 2004 and forwards from there. A couple of features – major changes in the south annular mode and the circumpolar vortex. Antarctica walled off essentially. But as GHGs increase ove rtime and the ozone hole recovers counter intuitively these effects may swap around. Interestingly these features currrently have impacts on rainfall decline in southern Australia.
On investigation of sunspots formally in GCMs
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_solar_2008.pdf
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/publications/meehl_solar_science_2009.pdf
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2011GL047794/abstract
So to pretend these things have no interest to the mainstream modelling community is simply untrue.
Me dumb redneck environment destroyer, me see expedition go to Antarctica ( pronounced correctly Anortica ) , proving Global Warming. Me see their ship stuck in ice. Me know AGW has to cause that.
It never snow in ANORTICA.Must be an iceberg. What ? Warm and iceberg ?
So glad ” Climate Professor ” there to explain.
Can we get him home to UNSW ? Why ? He want Mawson experience . 2014 summer, we get him, he be happy.
Do u remember when
a silk-shirted coterie
from th U-N
created the I-P-C-C,
with a mission,
guv-uh-mint funded
ter discuvuh
the scientific risk
uv human-induced
climate-change?
Say if yer don’t
find it does
this mean yer
funding goes away?
Yes Beth, it does mean that. Why find any other thing ?
TSI was shown in TAR at Figure 6.5:
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig6-5.htm
Lean et al’s conclusions match what Glassman calculated and matches temperature closely:
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html
Courtillot sums up the solar influence and where IPCC modelling goes wrong:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/geophysicist-explains-how-sun-controls.html
Looks as if it could be that the lunatics might even eventually have to abandon ship Cohers !
http://www.news.com.au/national/aurora-australis-is-forced-to-abandon-bit-to-rescue-stricken-russian-ship-mv-akademik-shokalskiy-from-ice/story-fncynjr2-1226791671102
Wow, what a waste, what a disgrace, what a mess in what we all regard as a pristine environment. I’d leave them all down there to eat penguins for a while.
Jo Nova has a good coverage of this farce as well. Funny coverage by some bloggers.
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/12/antarctic-ice-swallows-boat-media-spin/
Their ABC focus has shifted to cat 3 cyclone Christine that hit the Pilbara coast last night. Not a mention of their heroes stuck in the ice on ABC radio at noon.
But thay did manage to get someone to say that it was worst cyclone he had seen in the last 25 years.
So job well done I suppose.
>âLarge historical solar forcingâ is anathema to the IPCC â they canât allow it.â nope thatâs just sledging â [link to figure, based on Meehl et al. (2004) that only goes back to 1900]
âLarge historical solar forcingâ refers to millennial scale. Meehl et al is century scale. The IPCC’s radiative forcing methodology starts at 1750. The last solar Grand Minimum was 1645 – 1715 prior to 1750 (refer Coher’s TAR TSI plot).
No CO2-forced climate model, including Meehl et al at NCAR, parameterizes a âLarge historical solar forcingâ of the magnitude found by Shapiro et al (2011) or anywhere near it. Neither does any start solar forcing parameterization when solar output was at 1645 – 1715 levels.
It was increasing solar activity that got GAT up to 1900s levels in the first place. It wasn’t CO2 forcing (there was no CO2 uptick prior to 1900). Since the 1950s solar activity has been sustained at the highest level for well over 1000 years i.e. it was still forcing even though the level did not increase above the already ultra high level (a thermodynamic concept – see next).
Alec Rawls was trying to get this thermodynamic concept through to about a dozen solar specialist climate scientists, because they don’t understand how heat input to a system raises temperature, by using a water-pot-on-stove-element/TSI-GAT analogy (got through to one or two I think). Basically, you just put the pot on the element, turn the element up, leave at the same setting, and the temperature of the water gradually rises. Same with TSI-GAT:
Cold sun (stove element Low), cold climate (pot water cool), 1645-1715 Maunder Minimum
Warm sun (stove element Med), warm climate (pot water warm) 1715-1790
Cold sun (stove element Low), cold climate (pot water cool), 1795â1825 Dalton Minimum
Warm sun (stove element Med), warm climate (pot water warm) 1825-1930
Hot sun (stove element High), very warm climate (pot water hot) 1950-2009 Modern Grand Max.
The main consequence of the consistently ultra high TSI from 1950-2009 was that ocean heat content (OHC) gradually increased i.e. by analogy, stove element set to “High”, pot water temperature gradually increasing and pot water heat accumulating. This is the thermodynamic concept what Alec Rawls was trying to get through to the solar people in climate science but I don’t think he succeeded.
But OHC in the upper Pacific (the earth’s largest ocean) is no longer accumulating heat (actually cooling this century) i.e. without the sustained ultra high level of solar input that peaked around 1986 and although still high (relative to 1930) through to 2009, solar input has not been sufficient to maintain Pacific OHC (PDO just moves the heat around). Much of that Pacific ocean heat has been lost by current transport to the Indian Ocean which has been the only ocean accumulating heat this century, so much so that it has skewed the global OHC metrics. Idiots like Balmaseda et al (2012) that didn’t do a basin-by-basin analysis don’t know this of course (Bob Tisdale has done the analysis for them fortunately, but easy to see in the data). In other words, ocean heat accumulation is beginning to unwind starting with the upper Pacific.
Coher’s link to Glassman holds the key to all this in his conclusion:
“And what is significant depends not on the source â the Sun — but on the receiver â Earth. Moreover, because the problem is thermodynamic, and the medium, heat, has capacity but not inertia, temperature will not contain natural frequencies to resonate with a source.”
Heat only manifests when radiation from the sun strikes an absorbing material like land or ocean where the absorption depends on radiation-material “tuning”. Solar radiation has a heating effect on the ocean because it penetrates effectively to about 100m depth laying down energy over the entire tracklength (100m). LWIR from GHGs and clouds (DLR) only effectively penetrates the ocean surface about 10 microns, therefore DLR is not an ocean heating agent. All it does is aid evaporation at the surface (ocean cooling).
>âneglect natural variation e.g. oceanic oscillations.â nope they donât â you argue about the adequacy but they donât neglect these factors !
They do neglect those factors in the Assessment Report ensembles e.g. CMIP3/AR4 and CMIP5/AR5. Granted there are isolated modeling exercises that attempt to integrate oceanic variation but that is not the prevailing paradigm in CMIP ensembles. It has only really been Kosaka and Xie (2013) that has been able to mimic the 21st century PDO change of phase to negative and resulting temperature flatlining. No-one else has done that. Begs the question though (asked by Judith Curry among others): if the negative PDO phase post-2000 explains the flatlining, doesn’t the positive PDO phase explain 1980-2000 warming that has been attributed to AGW?
Obviously, there are some big bucks tied up in that ship. And the owners want to protect their investment. The last time I checked, the tentative plan was to leave the crew in place, so that they could steer the ship out when the sea ice has cleared sufficiently — whenever that is. Everyone else would be helicoptered out to a rescue ship.
The crew will probably have periodic food drops. But it would be more sporting for them to be at least partially self-sufficient.
I’m optimistic that a Best-Seller may come from this misadventure. The title? “The World’s 500 Best Penguin Recipes.”