bdgwx

I'm not very familiar with the climatology of Chicago this time of year. How unusual are the amounts the Euro is showing?

Arctic sea ice extents have taken a plunge recently and are now in record territory for this date dropping below 2006, 2016, 2017, and 2018 levels. So the melt season is already off to an aggressive start.

Where are these volcanoes and such that are warming the oceans at a rate of ~10e21 joules/year? How can volcanoes and such solve the faint young Sun paradox? Why did these volcanoes and such suddenly activate at the same time as the industrial revolution? Why is the stratosphere cooling? Where is the energy being trapped by GHGs going if not into the troposphere, hydrosphere, and cryosphere?

Yeah so it looks like the ensemble range on this study is 2040 to 2055 with a mean of about 2047 for the first ice-free (< 1e6 sq km) September.

You guys are so due for something big.

How much snow has Joplin received this year?

There are some heavy hitters in the CIPS analog list for this event including multiple moderate and high risk days.

12Z Euro looks potent for Arkansas. We'll have to watch southern MO for signs of elevated CAPE closer to the warm front where wind shear could be even more favorable for tornadic cells.

I had read somewhere that the primary goal of the GFS upgrade this round was obviously the transition to the new dynamical core (GSM to FV3). It wasn't necessarily to make substantial improvements to the skill of the forecasts. That may come later. I agree about wanting skill scores posted for the CONUS. It's great ranking models in terms of their skill over the entire NH, but at the end of the day most of us really only care about the United States or even our own backyards.

The Sun is certainly one actor in modulating the climate, but it's not the only actor. Solar activity and total solar irradiance peaked around 1960 when it flat lined and then even began to decline in recent decades. From 1990 to present the Earth accumulated 250e21 joules of energy (most of which went into the ocean). This was during a period in which solar radiation declined. The fact is that the Sun can't the cause of the warming that is happening today. Also, keep in mind that solar luminosity increases by about 1% every 100 million years. That means the Sun was 5% dimmer 500 million years ago when the Earth was much warmer. Clearly the Sun is not the only actor that determines Earth's equilibrium temperature through the paleoclimate record as well. There is a solution to the faint young Sun problem though. I bet you can guess what it is. Regarding cosmic rays influence on the climate...this had already been pretty well rejected prior to the CERN experiments, but in 2016 CERN effectively put the last nail in the coffin. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/354/6316/1119 Abstract: Fundamental questions remain about the origin of newly formed atmospheric aerosol particles because data from laboratory measurements have been insufficient to build global models. In contrast, gas-phase chemistry models have been based on laboratory kinetics measurements for decades. We built a global model of aerosol formation by using extensive laboratory measurements of rates of nucleation involving sulfuric acid, ammonia, ions, and organic compounds conducted in the CERN CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) chamber. The simulations and a comparison with atmospheric observations show that nearly all nucleation throughout the present-day atmosphere involves ammonia or biogenic organic compounds, in addition to sulfuric acid. A considerable fraction of nucleation involves ions, but the relatively weak dependence on ion concentrations indicates that for the processes studied, variations in cosmic ray intensity do not appreciably affect climate through nucleation in the present-day atmosphere. Also worth reading are Muscheler 2005, Lockwood 2007, Sloan 2008, Pierce 2009, Overholt 2009, Kulmala 2010, Calogovic 2010, and Erlykin 2013 which all say that GCRs have little if any effect on the climate. Mt Tambora ejected 60 Mt of SO2. This sulfur dioxide aerosol cloud spread around the entire Earth causing the year without a summer in 1816. This cooled the plant by about 0.6C globally with some estimates being as high as 1.0C globally and 3.0C in the NH. 60 Mt is equivalent to 0.012 ppm by mass. So a 0.012 ppm increase in SO2 can cause 0.6C of cooling but a 120 ppm increase in CO2 does nothing? Also, CFCs of which some species are measured in ppt (parts per trillion) are very destructive to stratospheric ozone. Anyway, the ability of trace gases like CO2 and CH4 to cause warming are well grounded in molecular physics and quantum mechanics principals and have been demonstrated as far back as the 1860's and even quantified as far back as the 1890's. Oh, and cow flatulence is actually CH4. CH4 happens to be a greenhouse gas as well that produces a positive radiative forcing on the climate system too. True. Vegetation in general thrives on CO2 because it is an essential ingredient for photosynthesis. However, just like CO2 isn't the only the thing that modulates the climate it isn't the only thing that modulates vegetation growth either. You have to consider soil chemistry, sunlight, moisture, temperature, surrounding biological activity, etc as well. CO2 warms the planet and as a result the climate will change in different ways for different regions. These climate changes may offset the biological benefit of higher CO2. Also, keep in mind that not all vegetation thrives equally on higher CO2 concentrations. It is believed that C4 plants evolved specifically as a way of coping with lower CO2 concentrations, moisture, and temperature. Corn is an example of a C4 crop that may not benefit much if at all by higher CO2 concentrations, but could be impacted negatively by climate change. CFCs really do deplete ozone. The science is pretty solid here too.

This is a thread focused on the Arctic region, but it's the Antarctic behavior that's most striking. There was a transition from record highs in 2013, 2014, and 2015 to record lows in 2016, 2017, and 2018. It almost seems like a fluke. I'm wondering if we won't see a reversion to the mean in the next few years. In looking at the IPCC predictions from model simulations there was an expectation that Antarctic sea ice extents would hold steady and perhaps even increase ever so slightly through 2025. Arctic sea ice is behaving about as expected. I realize the IPCC has underestimated the magnitude of the decline, but at least the general trend (downward) has been correct. The trend could even tolerate a sizable jump at this point perhaps even up to 2008/2013 levels.

Back to the central theme of this thread and to review. - No, a NOAA scientists (Bates) did not say that climate records were manipulated. David Rose from the Daily Mail made that up. It's fake news. - No, Karl did not commit any review blunders or rush his research through publication. If any blunders were made they were actually made under Bates' authority. Carbon Brief has a good write up about all of the inaccuracies contained in David Rose's fake news article. https://www.carbonbrief.org/factcheck-mail-sundays-astonishing-evidence-global-temperature-rise And here is the official MITRE investigation that was released last month. https://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/publications/MITRE-DoC-NOAA-Assessment-Report.pdf

Yes. I'm aware of climategate and I skimmed your link which I had not previously seen before. I don't typically make it a habit of reading material from questionable sources which is why I had not seen it before. Although at least 8 independent reviews concluded that there was no data hiding, fraudulent manipulation, or wrong doing of any kind related to the science of climate change as it relates to cliamtegate I personally find Mann et. al.'s style abrasive and unprofessional and I think the climategate emails justify my opinion. That's just my opinion. What's not my opinion is that Mann et. al.'s scientific work (that which is published in peer review journals) is absolutely not fraudulent in any way and, in fact, has been corroborated by multiple independent sources. In regards to the link you posted I have no way of verifying it's accuracy. One thing I've learned is that when presented with literature which can be found on a conspiracy theory website (assassinationscience.com), from a political lobby group (Lavoiser Group) hostile towards science, from a guy with questionable credibility (John Costella), without being properly vetted for accuracy, and with no accountability (Costella gets to say whatever he wants without consequence) your BS meter should at least be flashing yellow if not red. I'm not saying John Costella has necessarily misrepresented what happened (though it is possible), but I have to approach this with caution. You should too. And you can't blame me for being for cautious. Afterall, it was the Daily Mail's David Rose (who also has a similar credibility problem) that created the original fake news article central this thread that caused so many people to get duped into erroneously believing that NOAA commits fraud in regards to climate data which is patently false (refer to the MITRE investigation report here). I'm not saying your concerns aren't legitimate. I'm not saying there aren't bad apples. What I'm saying is that more often than not these claims of fraud seldom get substantiated and are often discovered to have fraudulent motivations themselves. And remember, the IPCC had I believe nearly 3,500 expert reviewers for AR5 of which John Costella found 5 to be "colourful characters". So you tell me...does Costella make the case that the entirety of the climate science is wrong? Anyway, here the reports from the real investigations related to climategate. http://www.cce-review.org/pdf/FINAL REPORT.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228975/7934.pdf https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/387/387i.pdf http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b https://www.psu.edu/ur/2014/fromlive/Final_Investigation_Report.pdf https://www.nsf.gov/oig/case-closeout/A09120086.pdf https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/response-preface.pdf

Scientific consensus is a multi-faceted concept that describes the aggregation of all available lines of evidence to form an idea/explanation/theory that best describes reality. It is a manifestation of and born out of all accumulated knowledge. The consensus morphs or adapts as new evidence is revealed or knowledge is acquired. One thing to keep in mind here is that consensus is not a popularity contest nor is it a poll of how people feel. It's not driven by unsubstantiated opinion. It is driven by evidence, observations, experiments, prediction/postdiction, falsification, consilience, repeatability, etc. Basically, it is the end result of all the things that make science...well...science. So, no, I do not think hard science is the result of consensus. I think consensus is the result of hard science.

So as of 2018 the Earth is about 1.1C above the preindustrial average. Berkeley Earth says the warming rate is 0.19C/decade. Assuming that rate holds firm the Earth will achieve 3C of warming (the center of the IPCC's 1.5-4.5C envelope) by (3 - 1.1) / (0.19 * 10) + 2018 = 2118. And if CO2 concentration growth holds firm at about 2.3 ppm/yr we will reach a doubling at (280*2 - 410) / 2.3 + 2018 = 2083. The difference being 35 years which is in the ballpark of what you expect the lag of the transient climate response (TCR) and equilibrium climate response (ECR) to be. And analyzed in another way the TCR at 2083 using the 0.19C/decade rate is (2083 - 2018) * (0.19 / 10) + 1.1 = 2.3C. Thus the ratio of TCR=2.3C to ECR=3.0C is 0.75. Again this is in the ballpark of estimates derived from multiple lines of evidence. And one last point...if we assume TCR-to-ECR is 0.75 that means the 1.1C of warming of transient warming will produce 1.1 / 0.75 = 1.45C of equilibrium warming. In other words 1.5C of warming may already be baked in.