Issues the Climate Change Contrarians Need to Address

[WeatherRusty]

There is no peer reviewed evidence as of now that supports we had the same temperatures in the arctic during the last AMO+ phase. It is almost certainly warmer during this AMO+ phase than the last one.

That does not mean the AMO does not provide a significant contribution on a multidecadal time scale to arctic temperatures though. It clearly has looking at the late 30s/early 40s peak, then subsequent dip and then rising again. The question is how much affect will the next AMO- phase have on the temperatures. If the external forcing is getting larger and larger as to overpower the natural cycles and reduce their significance, then we would expect arctic temperatures to continue to rise when we flip to AMO- sometime in the 2020s. We'll just have to wait and see.

On a larger scale, this is what we will be waiting to observe globally over the next couple decades...whether the recent slowdown is just a small sample size fluke or if the PDO/ENSO multidecadal cycle has the ability to slow the temperature rise in comparison to the 1975-2000 time frame.

There are no flukes or random variations, every movement is the consequence of a net change in forcing. Natural internal variability provides for the larger amplitude changes which occur superimposed on the longer term temperature record. So yes, ENSO obviously but temporarily accelerates and reduces the slower background rate in temperature rise. Less obvious is the impact of longer term ocean cycles, but to the degree they alter SST, particularly in the tropics, they also moderate the rate of change over a longer term measured in decades.

The longer term AGW signal is to dominate the decade to century long time frame.

[LakeEffectKing]

You need to be careful to distinguish between the Antarctic ice sheet, which has been losing mass, and the antarctic sea ice which has slowly gained area during the instrumental record. A chart from the NASA webpageon this:

And one from NSIDC:

You know, if you did these simple google searches yourself you would appear much better informed.

The bold is what seperates you from the likes of Will and/or Don S. and really does nothing to add to the debate other than adding virtual value to one's self.

[ORH_wxman]

There are no flukes or random variations, every movement is the consequence of a net change in forcing. Natural internal variability provides for the larger amplitude changes which occur superimposed on the longer term temperature record. So yes, ENSO obviously but temporarily accelerates and reduces the slower background rate in temperature rise. Less obvious is the impact of longer term ocean cycles, but to the degree they alter SST, particularly in the tropics, they also moderate the rate of change over a longer term measured in decades.

The longer term AGW signal is to dominate the decade to century long time frame.

Yes.

Which raises the question of whether the 1975-2000 warming trend was proof of an "Accelerating warming" that we could accurately depict as the new decade trend and extrapolate using that....or whether it was enhanced by the multi-decadal ocean cycles. Don posted a paper (that I havent yet read) that says very little of the warming during that period had to do with ocean cycles...I had linked a paper in here last year that showed roughly 1/3rd of the warming during that period was due to ocean cycles.

So one has to ask whether we have an accurate depiction of the AGW climate sensitivity based on just the last 2-3 decades of the 20th century. It is certainly a fair question to ask the longer the warming trend in the 21st century stays below the late 20th century warming trend.

This goes back to the discussion we had a while ago on the IPCC AR4 estimates of temperature and you asking where they get the rate of warming from...because the rate in the models clearly accelerates very quickly.

[ben4vols]

You need to be careful to distinguish between the Antarctic ice sheet, which has been losing mass, and the antarctic sea ice which has slowly gained area during the instrumental record. A chart from the NASA webpageon this:

And one from NSIDC:

You know, if you did these simple google searches yourself you would appear much better informed.

Adding sea ice to the Antarctic is much more impressive than the ice sheet losing mass.

[donsutherland1]

Also Don, you mention the Arctic but you don't mention the Antarctic which has actually been gaining ice over the last 30 years.

The relationship between the Antarctic and Arctic climates is complicated by the thermal bipolar see-saw. With respect to ice, I believe you're referring to Antarctic sea ice extent, which has increased. The Antarctic ice sheet has actually been melting and data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) revealed that the rate of the Antarctic ice loss (largely concentrated in the West) may be approaching that of Greenland. An article based on those results can be found at:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-010

[WeatherRusty]

Yes.

Which raises the question of whether the 1975-2000 warming trend was proof of an "Accelerating warming" that we could accurately depict as the new decade trend and extrapolate using that....or whether it was enhanced by the multi-decadal ocean cycles. Don posted a paper (that I havent yet read) that says very little of the warming during that period had to do with ocean cycles...I had linked a paper in here last year that showed roughly 1/3rd of the warming during that period was due to ocean cycles.

So one has to ask whether we have an accurate depiction of the AGW climate sensitivity based on just the last 2-3 decades of the 20th century. It is certainly a fair question to ask the longer the warming trend in the 21st century stays below the late 20th century warming trend.

This goes back to the discussion we had a while ago on the IPCC AR4 estimates of temperature and you asking where they get the rate of warming from...because the rate in the models clearly accelerates very quickly.

Climate sensitivity can not be determined by the rate of change. The rate of change involves the entire hodge podge of factors added together. What we mean by equalibrium climate sensitivity is the total change in global surface temperature to 3.7Wm^2 of radiative forcing. That would be represented by a doubling of CO2 in isolation. What final degree of change is a result of an isolated EXTERNAL radiative forcing when feedback is included?

Let's assume 2.3C for climate sensitivity. How long will be required for the surface temperature of the Earth to warm 2.3C? If at an average rate of 0.23C/decade it would require 100 years. If at 0.115C/decade it would take 200 years. With natural variability changing the trend rate all along the way to equilibrium, how can total time to equilibrium be determined?

If we reach 560ppm by 2060, or 650ppm by year 2060 would the rate of warming be faster in the later case, or would the time to reach equilibrium be pushed further out into the future

with the rate little effected? I would expect the rate would accelerate with the greater forcing, like turning up the burner from low to medium.

[ORH_wxman]

Climate sensitivity can not be determined by the rate of change. The rate of change involves the entire hodge podge of factors added together. What we mean by equalibrium climate sensitivity is the total change in global surface temperature to 3.7Wm^2 of radiative forcing. That would be represented by a doubling of CO2 in isolation. What final degree of change is a result of an isolated EXTERNAL radiative forcing when feedback is included?

Let's assume 2.3C for climate sensitivity. How long will be required for the surface temperature of the Earth to warm 2.3C? If at an average rate of 0.23C/decade it would require 100 years. If at 0.115C/decade it would take 200 years. With natural variability changing the trend rate all along the way to equilibrium, how can total time to equilibrium be determined?

If we reach 560ppm by 2060, or 650ppm by year 2060 would the rate of warming be faster in the later case, or would the time to reach equilibrium be pushed further out into the future

with the rate little effected? I would expect the rate would accelerate with the greater forcing, like turning up the burner from low to medium.

Yes you are right about sensitivity meaning the total external forcing and not the rate...I should have been clearer.

Many popular climate models seem to think we reach equilibrium sooner (like a century or two) rather than later given the rate of their warming.

It is an interesting question to apply to our observations...we can observe trends but they do not necessarily mean a sensitivity is lower or higher since we aren't sure how long it takes to attain equilibrium. We can probably place probabilities though given our observations...i.e. the climate sensitivity is more likely to be higher if we warm at 0.30C per decade between now and 2040 or the climate sensitivity is likely to be lower if we stay near or lower than 0.10C per decade between now and 2040 with continued rising GHG emmissions.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Adding sea ice to the Antarctic is much more impressive than the ice sheet losing mass.

Says who?

[valkhorn]

Good post, Don. I think legitimate skepticism is good, but some of the cases you cite far exceed legitimate skepticism. Goddard, for instance, has been accusing NCDC and GISS of fraud, claiming they are manipulating data to show a warming trend. This is complete fiction... Goddard cannot, or is unwilling to, grasp the fact that NCDC does not calculate a statewide or national average by simply averaging all of the data in a given state or in the nation. In fact, the NWS has been using climate divisions since the 1950s! I'm pretty sure the motivation for making the switch back then was to better calculate state, regional, and national averages by weighting different climate zones equally, and NOT to create a warming trend. A simple arithmetic mean neglects the fact that some areas are oversampled -- in the case of climate data, particularly in the early years, this was often lower elevation, urban areas -- and also neglects the fact that the location and number of sites has changed over time. A statewide average for Arizona consisting of three sites in and around Phoenix, three sites in and around Tuscon, and fifteen other sites, isn't going to be of much value in a large state with extremely varied geography.

The only adjustments are those disclosed by NCDC. If there is some sort of nefarious purpose, you wouldn't expect them to publish the adjustments on the website. Moreover, BEST found a slightly greater warming trend without those adjustments. BEST used some 7-8,000 U.S. stations, as opposed to the 1,222 USHCN sites, and employed a "scalpel" method that treated site and instrument changes as creating a new station entirely. Unlike NCDC, BEST was not motivated in creating a continuous record, but rather directed towards determining a trend from a large amount of data points, some continuous, some discontinuous. The only adjustment made by BEST was to downweight sites found, by regression, to exhibit an anomalous trend relative to nearby sites.

While Watts is correct that the data may be biased due to the urban heat island effect and siting issues, it is complete fiction to suppose these problems didn't exist in the past. In fact, most city stations used to be cited on rooftops, which have been found to be anomalously warm. Even rural sites did not always conform to specifications, I've seen cases where the shelter was installed only a couple feet above the ground, for instance. Unfortunately, Watts and his team weren't around to document the problems in the past.

Finally, Bastardi has turned into a complete hack. It wasn't too long ago, that he was insisting a major cool down would occur in 2012 and 2013. And I can't even recall the last time, he got a long-range forecast correct. Now it seems he'd rather just post images on Twitter of a six-month JMA forecast showing blue all over the place. And I'm not saying there aren't hacks on the other side (ahem, Romm). But some of this is really silly & somewhat disconcerting, especially Goddard's conspiracy theories.

Goddard is notorious for not only being a 'birther', but manipulating data and fabricating graphs.

He'll often never cite his original data, or show the formula for his trend lines. I really think he just draws trendlines on his graphs by hand.

In fact, recently, he claimed Andrew was a category 5 hurricane with 145mph winds without realizing the data he was looking at was in knots. If he can make that kind of a mistake, he's going to make others.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Goddard is notorious for not only being a 'birther', but manipulating data and fabricating graphs.

He'll often never cite his original data, or show the formula for his trend lines. I really think he just draws trendlines on his graphs by hand.

In fact, recently, he claimed Andrew was a category 5 hurricane with 145mph winds without realizing the data he was looking at was in knots. If he can make that kind of a mistake, he's going to make others.

I have seen worse he prematurely last year went crazy on Bremen or NSIDC claiming they were manipulating the 2007 sea ice Min or something of that manner. J Stroeve went to his blog and set him straight and he dropped out of his manic state.

This is disturbing that his blog is so well known and popular.

it makes no sense.

[winterymix]

The temps during this +AMO phase could certainly be warmer than the last in the Arctic although according to unadjusted temperature record from the Arctic stations it is close. Also the warming during this phase looks to be of longer duration vs the last. This would be expected though especially if there was more ice to melt in the last +AMO period vs this period. Which is my point of contention with Don's study he linked. Small changes in modeled ice from the past (around 1919) could have large impacts and completely invalidate the study. What was the inflow of Atlantic Water during the last +AMO phase (starting in 1919)?

It seems that you would prefer an inhibition of conclusions drawn from trends because the historic data

differs in quality and configurable validity compared to current best practices. So therefore, your guidance is that

we really shouldn't be attempting to form conclusions until a longer historical record is available. Based upon current trends,

it seems illogical to sit back and wait to see what happens. At the very least, we had a duty to make decisions in a manner that future generations do not curse us for handing down an unnecessarily corrupted environment. It seems to me that attempts to normalize anthropomorphic contributions upon elevated greenhouse gases is a path of least regret; If we are

correct, we win and if we are incorrect, nothing terrible occurs. So big deal, we spend profound amounts of money and resources to maintain a clean environment; would doing so be reason for shame and regret?

I'm not too keen on the idea of lassez-faire until a greater historic record is compiled; what would be the

advantage of doing so? What is occurring in the Southern Hemisphere is of less concern to me; what is occurring in the Northern Hemisphere is startling. If one is concerned with the costs involved with stewardship of the environment,

consider the costs if we guess incorrectly. To paraphrase Bruce Springsteen, we'll have bills no honest man can pay.

[WeatherRusty]

The cost to society in providing for a more diverse mix of energy sources, with increasing reliance on clean renewables it seems to me is a red herring. This is something we MUST accomplish in any event. The only difference is in hastening the delivery of those sources to help ward off the threat of very serious climate change. If we invested a fraction of what we waste on fighting wars we could make serious progress in a useful and practicle direction.

[donsutherland1]

I came across another paper that further corroborates the earth's energy imbalance and continuing rise in Oceanic Heat Content (OHC).

The abstract:

We review the sea-level and energy budgets together from 1961, using recent and updated estimates of all terms. From 1972 to 2008, the observed sea-level rise (1.8 ± 0.2 mm yr⁻¹ from tide gauges alone and 2.1 ± 0.2 mm yr⁻¹ from a combination of tide gauges and altimeter observations) agrees well with the sum of contributions (1.8 ± 0.4 mm yr⁻¹) in magnitude and with both having similar increases in the rate of rise during the period. The largest contributions come from ocean thermal expansion (0.8 mm yr⁻¹) and the melting of glaciers and ice caps (0.7 mm yr⁻¹), with Greenland and Antarctica contributing about 0.4 mm yr⁻¹. The cryospheric contributions increase through the period (particularly in the 1990s) but the thermosteric contribution increases less rapidly. We include an improved estimate of aquifer depletion (0.3 mm yr⁻¹), partially offsetting the retention of water in dams and giving a total terrestrial storage contribution of −0.1 mm yr⁻¹. Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m⁻² for the 1980s and early 1990s. It increases in the late 1990s, as is required for consistency with little surface warming over the last decade. This increase is likely at least partially related to substantial increases in aerosol emissions from developing nations and moderate volcanic activity.

http://www.agu.org/p...1GL048794.shtml

NOTE: I underlined the key portion noting that OHC is rising in a fashion consistent with greenhouse gas forcing.

This paper adds to the literature that contradicts the hypotheses of an earth that has no energy imbalance and one in which OHC is not rising.

[Jonger]

I came across another paper that further corroborates the earth's energy imbalance and continuing rise in Oceanic Heat Content (OHC).

The abstract:

We review the sea-level and energy budgets together from 1961, using recent and updated estimates of all terms. From 1972 to 2008, the observed sea-level rise (1.8 ± 0.2 mm yr⁻¹ from tide gauges alone and 2.1 ± 0.2 mm yr⁻¹ from a combination of tide gauges and altimeter observations) agrees well with the sum of contributions (1.8 ± 0.4 mm yr⁻¹) in magnitude and with both having similar increases in the rate of rise during the period. The largest contributions come from ocean thermal expansion (0.8 mm yr⁻¹) and the melting of glaciers and ice caps (0.7 mm yr⁻¹), with Greenland and Antarctica contributing about 0.4 mm yr⁻¹. The cryospheric contributions increase through the period (particularly in the 1990s) but the thermosteric contribution increases less rapidly. We include an improved estimate of aquifer depletion (0.3 mm yr⁻¹), partially offsetting the retention of water in dams and giving a total terrestrial storage contribution of −0.1 mm yr⁻¹. Ocean warming (90% of the total of the Earth's energy increase) continues through to the end of the record, in agreement with continued greenhouse gas forcing. The aerosol forcing, inferred as a residual in the atmospheric energy balance, is estimated as −0.8 ± 0.4 W m⁻² for the 1980s and early 1990s. It increases in the late 1990s, as is required for consistency with little surface warming over the last decade. This increase is likely at least partially related to substantial increases in aerosol emissions from developing nations and moderate volcanic activity.

http://www.agu.org/p...1GL048794.shtml

NOTE: I underlined the key portion noting that OHC is rising in a fashion consistent with greenhouse gas forcing.

This paper adds to the literature that contradicts the hypotheses of an earth that has no energy imbalance and one in which OHC is not rising.

You are the best contributor to this forum without a doubt, but this section here from the article is easily dismissed as a cop-out.

This is important as well, since the only purpose that a "settled science" needs to accomplish is to spurn into action a population not addressing the issue. Lets face it, since the "science is settled", there really isn't much to accomplish in the meantime beyond making excuses for changes that haven't happened or scaring people with weather and chalking up all the bad stuff to AGW.

[ORH_wxman]

The aerosol emission explanation for cooling doesn't add up when looking at the temperature record. I haven't seen a peer reviewed paper that is able to conclusively link aerosols as having that great of an impact on sfc temps...someone can maybe correct me if they do know of a paper that is able to make that connection with high confidence. (emissions wise...volcanos are a different story)

I've seen several graphs that show that aerosol emissions peaked in the 1980s to near 1990. The question is...are the graphs correct? If so, why would the cooling be observed from the 1940s-1970s and then warming in the 1980s despite aerosol emissions continuing to increase and certainly exist at higher levels than the 1950s/1960s.

[rygar]

Both "sides" are making great points. As long as both "sides" avoid stating things are conclusive one way or the other we can all get along and make this world a better place for future generations.

[Jonger]

Both "sides" are making great points. As long as both "sides" avoid stating things are conclusive one way or the other we can all get along and make this world a better place for future generations.

I'm a "denier" that agrees 100% with ditching fossil fuels ASAP and killing all oil subsidies and redirecting that money to renewable's. Its the behind the scene logistics that we enjoy discussing.

[TerryM]

The aerosol emission explanation for cooling doesn't add up when looking at the temperature record. I haven't seen a peer reviewed paper that is able to conclusively link aerosols as having that great of an impact on sfc temps...someone can maybe correct me if they do know of a paper that is able to make that connection with high confidence. (emissions wise...volcanos are a different story)

I've seen several graphs that show that aerosol emissions peaked in the 1980s to near 1990. The question is...are the graphs correct? If so, why would the cooling be observed from the 1940s-1970s and then warming in the 1980s despite aerosol emissions continuing to increase and certainly exist at higher levels than the 1950s/1960s.

Didn't Skier present a graph a few weeks ago showing aerosols peaking in the 1950's?

Terry

[donsutherland1]

You are the best contributor to this forum without a doubt, but this section here from the article is easily dismissed as a cop-out.

This is important as well, since the only purpose that a "settled science" needs to accomplish is to spurn into action a population not addressing the issue. Lets face it, since the "science is settled", there really isn't much to accomplish in the meantime beyond making excuses for changes that haven't happened or scaring people with weather and chalking up all the bad stuff to AGW.

Jonger,

I share Will's hesitation to embrace the aerosol explanation for the possible short-term slowing of the warming. I suspect natural variability is involved. One of the papers I cited in the first post in this thread suggested that once natural variability is accounted for, the warming signal is intact and steady (not accelerating and not decelerating).

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/6/4/044022/pdf/1748-9326_6_4_044022.pdf

That gives me confidence that natural variability is probably the better explanation than aerosol increases. Perhaps additional papers on that issue will be forthcoming in the next year or so.

[ORH_wxman]

Didn't Skier present a graph a few weeks ago showing aerosols peaking in the 1950's?

Terry

He might have, but I certainly do not recall it. The graphs I have seen from multiple different sources show aerosols peaking around the time of the Montreal Protocol in the late 1980s.

But I haven't read much literature on aerosol emissions.

[The_Global_Warmer]

NUCLEAR BOMBS.

Come On Guys, you are scientists, someone has to know if setting off a thousand or more above ground Nuclear Tests

1963 a treaty was signed by the powers but France and China to stop detonating outdoors. We can see leading up to that countries went on a bender. But even so may countries had under-ground or cavern like "indoor" bombs that should be considered outdoor or underwater when the plume still penetrated the atmosphere.

The TSAR bomb was a 50 Megaton Beast.

Tsar Bomb was flown to its test site by a specially modified Tu-95V release plane, flown by Major Andrei Durnovtsev. Taking off from an airfield in the Kola Peninsula, the release plane was accompanied by a Tu-16 observer plane that took air samples and filmed the test. Both aircraft were painted with a special reflective white paint to limit heat damage.

The bomb, weighing 27 tons, was so large (8 metres (26 ft) long by 2 metres (6.6 ft) in diameter) that the Tu-95V had to have its bomb bay doors and fuselage fuel tanks removed. The bomb was attached to an 800 kilogram parachute, which gave the release and observer planes time to fly about 45 kilometres (28 mi) away from ground zero. When detonation occurred the Tu-95V fell one kilometer from its previous altitude due to the shock wave of the bomb.

The Tsar Bomba's fireball, about 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) in diameter, was prevented from touching the ground by the shock wave, but nearly reached the 10.5 kilometres (6.5 mi) altitude of the deploying Tu-95 bomber.

The Tsar Bomb detonated at 11:32 on October 30, 1961 over the Mityushikha Bay nuclear testing range (Sukhoy Nos Zone C), north of the Arctic Circle on Novaya Zemlya Island in the Arctic Sea. The bomb was dropped from an altitude of 10.5 kilometres (6.5 mi); it was designed to detonate at a height of 4 kilometres (2.5 mi) over the land surface (4.2 kilometres (2.6 mi) over sea level) by barometric sensors.^[2][7][8]

The original, November 1961 A.E.C. estimate of the yield was 55–60 Mt, but since 1991 all Russian sources have stated its yield as 50 Mt. Khrushchev warned in a filmed speech to the Supreme Soviet of the existence of a 100 Mt bomb (technically the design was capable of this yield). Although simplistic fireball calculations predicted the fireball would impact the ground, the bomb's own shock wave reflected back and prevented this.^[9] The fireball reached nearly as high as the altitude of the release plane and was seen almost 1,000 kilometres (620 mi) from ground zero. The subsequent mushroom cloud was about 64 kilometres (40 mi) high (over seven times the height of Mount Everest), which meant that the cloud was above the stratosphere and well inside the mesosphere when it peaked. The base of the cloud was 40 kilometres (25 mi) wide. All buildings in the village of Severny (both wooden and brick), located 55 kilometres (34 mi) from ground zero within the Sukhoy Nos test range, were completely destroyed. In districts hundreds of kilometers from ground zero, wooden houses were destroyed, stone ones lost their roofs, windows and doors; and radio communications were interrupted for almost one hour. One participant in the test saw a bright flash through dark goggles and felt the effects of a thermal pulse even at a distance of 270 kilometres (170 mi). The heat from the explosion could have caused third-degree burns 100 km (62 mi) away from ground zero. A shock wave was observed in the air at Dikson settlement 700 kilometres (430 mi) away; windowpanes were partially broken to distances of 900 kilometres (560 mi). Atmospheric focusing caused blast damage at even greater distances, breaking windows in Norway and Finland. The seismic shock created by the detonation was measurable even on its third passage around the Earth.^[10] Its seismic body wave magnitude was about 5 to 5.25.^[9] The energy yield was around 7.1 on the Richter scale but, since the bomb was detonated in air rather than underground, most of the energy was not converted to seismic waves. The TNT equivalent of the 50 Mt test could be represented by a cube of TNT 312 meters (1023 feet) on a side, approximately the height of the Eiffel Tower.

So by 1961 we were detonating that kind of bomb in the arctic circle. I am glad we stopped.

Before the bomb:

Directly after the bomb:

Maybe it's coincidence, but maybe not. there should of been a ton of dust/dirt/ice vapor thrown into the upper atmosphere from that boss. Surface temps in the Kara Sea took a 20-30C swing before to after the bomb.

30 days out:

I doubt the TSAR bomb could manipulate widespread cold, but that is a big bomn

[Jonger]

NUCLEAR BOMBS.

I doubt the TSAR bomb could manipulate widespread cold, but that is a big bomn

I circled Tsar Bomba's detonation spot.... I was actually reading quite extensively about this bomb last month, but not in relation to climate change. It's possible I guess.

[The_Global_Warmer]

I circled Tsar Bomba's detonation spot.... I was actually reading quite extensively about this bomb last month, but not in relation to climate change. It's possible I guess.

Just in the last hour I took a refresher course, this thing was a hoss.

Whether it was 50 or 57 Mega-tonnes at that point it covered 25% of all nuclear fallout.

We can see below the TSAR bomb would reach way up there. Every bomb above 1MT is going to effect climate even if it's just local. The thermal radiation will disperse quickly but dust, soot, ice, vapor, anything that can block solar radiation would be thrusted well into the troposphere and stratosphere or higher.

there isn't much climate change research on this because I doubt the worlds superpowers want to take any responsibility if they set off or aided in a global cooling event.

They surely by the early 60s(1963) knew they were messing something up, or enemies wouldn't agree to a pact to stop atmospheric tests.

[Jonger]

Just in the last hour I took a refresher course, this thing was a hoss.

Whether it was 50 or 57 Mega-tonnes at that point it covered 25% of all nuclear fallout.

We can see below the TSAR bomb would reach way up there. Every bomb above 1MT is going to effect climate even if it's just local. The thermal radiation will disperse quickly but dust, soot, ice, vapor, anything that can block solar radiation would be thrusted well into the troposphere and stratosphere or higher.

there isn't much climate change research on this because I doubt the worlds superpowers want to take any responsibility if they set off or aided in a global cooling event.

They surely by the early 60s(1963) knew they were messing something up, or enemies wouldn't agree to a pact to stop atmospheric tests.

I did read this was quite a clean bomb, by bomb standards. It was mostly fusion and little fission... So not much fallout, but that doesn't mean it didn't kick up a crap from the ground and possibly inject water vapor into the air. I have no idea though, just something I remembered about the bomb.

This would be tough to test since nobody will detonate one to test out the theory I'm sure.

[ORH_wxman]

There is no real scientific evidence that nuclear testing was the cause of the 1940s-1970s cooling...for one, the drop in temperatures began before testing ramped up, and two, the testing was still at pretty high levels (according to the graph posted) into the 1980s, well after the cooling had halted and warming resumed.

But we can't ever rule anything out that hasn't been thoroughly examined and I'm not sure that nuclar testing has. Just from looking at the amount of testing though, it seems to have a similar problem in correlation with temperatures that the aerosols have...the temperatures stopped falling when the variable in question was still quite robust on the graphs.

And neither variable fits the cooling period as well as the multi-decadal Pacific ocean cycle as it relates to ENSO....PDO commonly referred to in that case even though the PDO itself is more of a product of ENSO oscillation.

[The_Global_Warmer]

Most nuke tests after 1963 were underground.

It wouldnt be enough to be the cauase the cooling but maybe contribute at higher latitudes

[Ottawa Blizzard]

Good post, Don. I think legitimate skepticism is good, but some of the cases you cite far exceed legitimate skepticism. Goddard, for instance, has been accusing NCDC and GISS of fraud, claiming they are manipulating data to show a warming trend. This is complete fiction... Goddard cannot, or is unwilling to, grasp the fact that NCDC does not calculate a statewide or national average by simply averaging all of the data in a given state or in the nation. In fact, the NWS has been using climate divisions since the 1950s! I'm pretty sure the motivation for making the switch back then was to better calculate state, regional, and national averages by weighting different climate zones equally, and NOT to create a warming trend. A simple arithmetic mean neglects the fact that some areas are oversampled -- in the case of climate data, particularly in the early years, this was often lower elevation, urban areas -- and also neglects the fact that the location and number of sites has changed over time. A statewide average for Arizona consisting of three sites in and around Phoenix, three sites in and around Tuscon, and fifteen other sites, isn't going to be of much value in a large state with extremely varied geography.

The only adjustments are those disclosed by NCDC. If there is some sort of nefarious purpose, you wouldn't expect them to publish the adjustments on the website. Moreover, BEST found a slightly greater warming trend without those adjustments. BEST used some 7-8,000 U.S. stations, as opposed to the 1,222 USHCN sites, and employed a "scalpel" method that treated site and instrument changes as creating a new station entirely. Unlike NCDC, BEST was not motivated in creating a continuous record, but rather directed towards determining a trend from a large amount of data points, some continuous, some discontinuous. The only adjustment made by BEST was to downweight sites found, by regression, to exhibit an anomalous trend relative to nearby sites.

While Watts is correct that the data may be biased due to the urban heat island effect and siting issues, it is complete fiction to suppose these problems didn't exist in the past. In fact, most city stations used to be cited on rooftops, which have been found to be anomalously warm. Even rural sites did not always conform to specifications, I've seen cases where the shelter was installed only a couple feet above the ground, for instance. Unfortunately, Watts and his team weren't around to document the problems in the past.

Finally, Bastardi has turned into a complete hack. It wasn't too long ago, that he was insisting a major cool down would occur in 2012 and 2013. And I can't even recall the last time, he got a long-range forecast correct. Now it seems he'd rather just post images on Twitter of a six-month JMA forecast showing blue all over the place. And I'm not saying there aren't hacks on the other side (ahem, Romm). But some of this is really silly & somewhat disconcerting, especially Goddard's conspiracy theories.

Recall that he was posting JMA maps last March, at which time they were calling for a cool summer in the east. So much for that forecast! How can anyone take him seriously with his call for a cold winter? I remember him tweeting a month or so ago that he was expecting it to be a cold run up to the November election. I suppose he's thinking it will be a cool El Nino Fall.

[ORH_wxman]

Most nuke tests after 1963 were underground.

It wouldnt be enough to be the cauase the cooling but maybe contribute at higher latitudes

Ok, so the graph was not really relevant then.

From what I understand, even smaller volcanoes dwarf what a nuclear bomb does and we know that only larger eruptions will have an effect on temperatures in any significant manner...and even then for only a year or two ala Pinatubo which was a VEI 6. Smaller volcanoes do relatively little.

[ben4vols]

Recall that he was posting JMA maps last March, at which time they were calling for a cool summer in the east. So much for that forecast! How can anyone take him seriously with his call for a cold winter? I remember him tweeting a month or so ago that he was expecting it to be a cold run up to the November election. I suppose he's thinking it will be a cool El Nino Fall.

To be fair, later in spring he revised his summer forecast.

[gracetoyou]

This is a good thread. Great information & very respectful posting. This thread is the closest thing to good objective (at least more so than normal) discussion as I've seen in a while over this emotional topic. If we can only get the scientific community having the same types of discussion instead of trying to win a debate. Kudos to everyone on great posting.