chubbs

GISS vs CMIP5 forcing (source for forcing # below, volcanoes*0.25 reflecting observed response to short duration activity). Observed TCR is roughly 1.8 inline with model estimates.

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/2018JD028481

GISS - the current spike has fully corrected the hiatus, but the 11-year mean hasn't turned up much --- yet.

http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/Temperature/

31 minutes ago, Typhoon Tip said:

 

O,  I C ...

No I don't actually...  what the in hell do all these abbreviations mean in that product's context?   What's "PV" ... does that mean polar vortex. What in the f are "WEO" ... "IEA" and NPS... 

Oh, I see ... some of those are expanded in the subheading.. .But what is PV again?

PV = photovoltaic i.e. solar

Here is solar in previous IEA outlooks - 2035 in the base case is undoubtedly conservative.

Saw this on twitter from the International Energy Agency's recently issued 2019 World Energy Outlook. Base case on left, sustainable development, broadly consistent with Paris targets, on right. Solar forecast to  be #1 in global power generation by 2035 in base case. That date is moved forward to 2028 for "sustainable development". This isn't rocket science.

From ZHausfather's twitter. Every possible trend to present, CMIP5 vs obs. Warming has picked-up in the past decade or so and is now faster than CMIP5 models. 

HadSST vs CMIP5 RCP6 SST prediction. 2019 is through Sept for HADSST3 and not available for HADSST4.  Overall CMIP5 is performing well. The post-hiatus spike has taken SST from below to above the model prediction.

Here is the RSS TLT maps for Sept and Aug. I don't see any evidence that the SHemi strat warming had much impact. The September warmth occurred in pockets across the globe (including E US). Probably just a fluky satellite month.

8 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

IMO, markets will need to be leveraged, not supplanted, to offer perhaps the highest probability that the challenge of anthropogenic climate change is met. Policy that aims to supplant markets will probably run aground.

A strong enough carbon tax would quickly put us on a much better trajectory, been a no-brainer for decades. Much better to tax carbon than income.

19 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

The retraction note can be found here: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1585-5

Review is helpful. Occasionally, errors are made and they require papers to be retracted. Even with this paper's retraction, the fundamental understandings related to climate change and the increase in oceanic heat content have not changed.

Yes, the recent observations (Argo floats and other buoy systems) and climate models are in good agreement.

Validation of a 2007 paper. The stronger hurricanes are getting stronger.

http://myweb.fsu.edu/jelsner/stronger-hur.html

Less regional variability in US than I would have expected.

Warming picked-up coming out of the hiatus. GISS v4 currently has a 30-year warming rate of 0.21/decade.  The 10-year rate is 0.36/decade (barely significant due to short period)

http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html

14 hours ago, blizzard1024 said:

CO2 has an absorption band in the IR between 13 and 17 microns with a peak at 15 microns. Water vapor has multiple bands in the IR in fact most of the emission spectra in the IR from the Earth resembles the H20 bands.  CO2 absorbs IR between -50c and -110C so it has little to no effect directly on the lower and middle troposphere. Also water vapor dominates the lower and middle troposphere and thins out dramatically in the upper troposphere. So CO2 does have the most influence in the upper troposphere where cold temperatures are affected. But how can a weak GHG dominate the entire choatic non-linear climate system? Water vapor and clouds are the primary GHGs.  CO2 theoretically leads to some warming in the upper troposphere which in theory would warm the lower troposphere and cool the stratosphere. But if H20 increases in the lower troposphere its emission cools the upper troposphere.  CO2 if all else remains equal leads to 1.2C of warming per doubling. But clouds, a negative water vapor feedback could easily drop the sensitivity to less than 1C.  The paleo records clearly show that CO2 is not the control knob on the climate system.  

A doubling of CO2 likely is less than 1C and possiblly even less. 

 

 

Not sure where you are getting your paleo (or other) info from. CO2 is a control knob and water magnifies the impact of CO2. Without CO2 there wouldn't be much water vapor in the atmosphere.

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

Can't get too excited about any one study or model. However, after 40+ years of rapid warming since aerosols stabilized, it should be clear that nature isn't going to bail us out.

13 hours ago, donsutherland1 said:

Two key parameters were omitted:

1. The Holocene Climatic Optimum was warmer than today in part of the Northern Hemisphere, not globally.

2. The excess warmth over today in those regions concerned the summer months.

When everything is taken in context, a more accurate statement would read: the Holocene Climatic Optimum had warmer summers than today in part of the Northern Hemisphere.

Yes and the summer sun was 5+% stronger in the arctic in the HCO explaining the summer warmth. We are blowing past the HCO in the arctic with unfavorable orbital conditions for arctic warmth.

Interesting how misinformation on climate science and renewables goes hand-in-hand.

46 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

Even if it is higher up than RSS there should be more warming based on the enhanced greenhouse  theory. We are not seeing this. We don't understand enough about the radiation balances, convection, albedo, ocean current, solar cycles and longer term trends to be blaming most climate change on a trace gas that never mattered in the past. The Vostok ice cores irrefutably prove this.  How anyone could look at these ice cores and still believe that CO2 drives climate is beyond me. 

 

Funny, I have the opposite reaction to ice cores.  The temperature/CO2 correlation is almost perfect in ice cores and modern observations.

Hasn't received any publicity, but the NHemi oceans are scorching, much more important to global July temp records than the brief European heat wave. Per below the warming has continued in early Aug. UHI?

12 minutes ago, blizzard1024 said:

RSS adjusted their dataset to account for diurnal drift using model data instead of real data and hence now is way warmer than it should be. UAH is the only dataset that still matches the upper air balloons. I trust the UAH because it is confirmed by this totally different dataset

No -RSS implemented a new method in V4. The main difference between uah and RSS, is that uah discards some NOAA-14 data because it "warmed too much". RSS is in much better agreement with other data sets. Below is land temperatures where diurnal drift is most important. UAH lags in the late 1990s/early 2000s when the NOAA-14 data was removed.

Warmest July for RSS - 0.71 vs 0.70 in 2010.   0.8C of warming in past 40 years.

Thanks Don, does appear relevant this year.

Think this will go down to the wire. The Pac-side pack has been deteriorating in a favorable pattern. 

With the favorable conditions we have had this year, am going to stick with my original prediction of 2019/20. Any other year is a crap shoot, or Russian roulette with the number of bullets slowly increasing. The 2012 volume anomaly minimum, around -8000000 km3, will be average in less than a decade.

Looking more and more like a 2 horse race