Scientist Predicts Mini Ice Age in next few decades...

[Paratus]

Then why didn't a single model predict the pause after 1998? Why are there are nearly a dozen different explanations for the pause (including that there was no pause).

Here is a question for you that I have not seen the answer to anywhere. I am genuinely interested.

How much has the climate warmed since 1900?
How much has the climate warmed since 1900 due to increased CO2?
How much has the climate warmed since 1900 due to other natural factors?
What are those other natural factors that caused warming and how much did each factor contribute?

Your pointing to a TSI that was still, on that chart, higher than the 1930s.
If I had to guess pollution might be a factor that was present more in the second half of the century.
I feel like Paratus might have a field day sorting this out.

Paratus actually has a family and a job so as much fun as this is I'm not going to spend a lot of time on it.

Good news is I don't have to.
From the IPCC (via a climate blog)

(A question for either of you. Why are they measuring the forcings in units of watts per meter squared?)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change

 

[OverVolt]

Solar output increased significantly from 1896 to 1946. It was flat/declining from 1960 to 2008.

If anything we should probably have seen some cooling over that period instead of the large warming we saw.

Either that or there is a 40 year lag time until the atmosphere actually warms.

 

[Jaskalas]

A question for either of you. Why are they measuring the forcings in units of watts per meter squared?

Because we've actually measured it directly. As the sum total of all those factors. So that makes it essentially a pure and indisputable fact... the energy accumulation on a planetary scale.

 

[dank69]

Ok, this was your answer to my first three questions. IMHO, the ideal temperature would be 10 degrees warmer. I base that on the on the Cambrian explosion. In all honesty I have no more and no less basis for my assertion than you do. I do know beyond a reasonable doubt that global cooling is cataclysmic. I am unaware of any warming phase in the entirety of earth's history that was harmful to life, it has always been the other way and the geologic column backs that up.

You expressed a fear of the rate of climate change more than the absolute climate itself. Where is the science backing this fear? Man has been pumping CO2 at a mad rate for decades now and if climate change has negatively affected civilization, the only way we know is that "scientists" have told us. From crop yields to global greening, extra CO2 in the atmosphere has proven to be a boon to humanity.

As you know already, we currently far below the temperature that the earth has been for vast majority of it's existence. Currently the earth has little biodiversity, matching other cool periods of earth's history. I have no fear of warming, I welcome it. I trust the data that scientists have accumulated about the earth's past. You should too.

Good news bshole, the arctic was 4C hotter than normal for January. We're well on our way to 10C hotter! Start celebrating!

 

[sandorski]

Good news bshole, the arctic was 4C hotter than normal for January. We're well on our way to 10C hotter! Start celebrating!

Ugh, you Greenhadists never stop! Every month it's, "Last Month was the warmest Month on Record" over and over and over again!! Just show us the Warming already!!!!!!

[/channeling]

 

[Paratus]

Because we've actually measured it directly. As the sum total of all those factors. So that makes it essentially a pure and indisputable fact... the energy accumulation on a planetary scale.

Not quite. I was looking more for a text book answer.

A watt is a measure of power. A W/m^2 is the amount of power delivered to an area.

Power is the rate at which energy is added or subtracted to a system. In this case 1 Watt = 1Joule per second.

A joule is the amount of energy required to heat 1 gram of water by about .24K


I keep harping on energy balance. Conservation of energy is one of the fundamental theories of physics. The sun provides a whole bunch of joules every second to every square meter of the planet facing the sun. In fact about 1360W/m^2 of solar power reach the earths atmosphere. This averages to about 340 W/m^2 or 1/4 when spread across half the spherical earth.

So we measure our forcings in W/m^2 to make it easy to perform an energy balance. The sun provides us all these joules / second and we must account for all them if we want to know what's happening with the climate.

Some forcings are always positive or negative. Some can be both. Take clouds. They can be cooling because they reflect some number of W/m^2 if visible light back into space. They can also reflect some number of W/m^2 of infrared heat back to the ground. You've felt both of these. It's obviously cooler standing in the shade of a cloud during the day. It's also obvious that the coldest nights tend to be cloudless.

So for their to be a pause in the lower troposphere what would that mean for the number of joules entering and leaving? Which forcings could reasonably be effected by the lower troposphere?

 

[dphantom]

So for their to be a pause in the lower troposphere what would that mean for the number of joules entering and leaving? Which forcings could reasonably be effected by the lower troposphere?

Dr David Evans has a paper currently in peer review that addresses that very question. Whether his analysis stands up or not is open to question over the coming years. But he makes a very strong case for answering that question.

 

[fskimospy]

Dr David Evans has a paper currently in peer review that addresses that very question. Whether his analysis stands up or not is open to question over the coming years. But he makes a very strong case for answering that question.

Do you have a link to this paper?

Based on his poor track record I'm not anticipating a very compelling paper but you never know!

 

[dank69]

Dr David Evans has a paper currently in peer review that addresses that very question. Whether his analysis stands up or not is open to question over the coming years. But he makes a very strong case for answering that question.

Most of his stuff has been thoroughly debunked in the past. I'm sure this time will be different.

 

[dphantom]

Do you have a link to this paper?

Based on his poor track record I'm not anticipating a very compelling paper but you never know!

It is in peer review now however he has a series of articles on his wife's blog site if you care to read. There are 22 articles covering the entire paper.

 

[dank69]

It is in peer review now however he has a series of articles on his wife's blog site if you care to read. There are 22 articles covering the entire paper.

Before you give us that link, can you tell us how many "buy gold now!" ads are on her blog?

LOL, nevermind. I found it. Only one gold buying ad.

 

[fskimospy]

It is in peer review now however he has a series of articles on his wife's blog site if you care to read. There are 22 articles covering the entire paper.

That is a deeply insane blog. I clicked on the 'big government' section and she's ranting about Ebola because she has an undergrad degree in microbiology. This does not bode well for the paper, haha.

Regardless, do you have a link to these articles?

 

[Jaskalas]

Not quite. I was looking more for a text book answer.

I was thinking in practical terms. Because we've measured it, the breakdown of factors is essentially confirmed. Which, for the subject, means there's no room for a significant piece to be missing. That the energy balance picture is mostly complete.

I expected you to raise it for the purpose of shooting down any question that the temperature increase in the second half century was driven by CO2. For that is what is contested.

To which I'll say energy balance VS measured W/m^2 is a very compelling argument.

 

[Thebobo]

Hole crap folks ITS ONE FREAKING SCIENTIST!

 

[OverVolt]

I was thinking in practical terms. Because we've measured it, the breakdown of factors is essentially confirmed. Which, for the subject, means there's no room for a significant piece to be missing. That the energy balance picture is mostly complete.

I expected you to raise it for the purpose of shooting down any question that the temperature increase in the second half century was driven by CO2. For that is what is contested.

To which I'll say energy balance VS measured W/m^2 is a very compelling argument.

Hmm? Everything is focused on the surface atmosphere. 26 miles of low heat capacity air. Its likely the wrong way of modeling. The atmosphere isn't a greenhouse, its part of the planet, a much larger system.

Everything interacts with the atmosphere. They have the radiance coming in, and the radiance going out. The amount absorbed and reflected by the surface, clouds, composition of the air, etc. Everything is about the air. More H2O is a potent greenhouse gas, nevermind that evaporation is endothermic and on the planetary scale it is no small variable to be ignored.

Totally ignoring the feedback mechanisms with the ocean and crust is a mistake. I'm not surprised that the surface soil is absorbing more water than anticipated. There are more forms of energy than just heat. Rain refilling aquifers is quite the heat sink.

 

[dphantom]

That is a deeply insane blog. I clicked on the 'big government' section and she's ranting about Ebola because she has an undergrad degree in microbiology. This does not bode well for the paper, haha.

Regardless, do you have a link to these articles?

They are on the site. There is a search feature to help. The articles are written clearly but do include a fair amount of math. However, the lay person should be able to follow the argument without needing the math. Whether one agrees or not, I thought it was interesting.

I am unsure what the Ebola thing has to do with this topic and my small contribution to the OPs post regarding Evan's proposition, but if you want to link the two to make some point I guess you could.

 

[Thebobo]

This throws the theory out.

"Scientists are floored by what’s happening in the Arctic right now"

New data from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration suggest that January of 2016 was, for the globe, a truly extraordinary month. Coming off the hottest year ever recorded (2015), January saw the greatest departure from average of any month on record, according to data provided by NASA.

 

[fskimospy]

They are on the site. There is a search feature to help. The articles are written clearly but do include a fair amount of math. However, the lay person should be able to follow the argument without needing the math. Whether one agrees or not, I thought it was interesting.

I'm mostly interested in locating the paper to see if other scientists have reviewed or critiqued it as they would be far better judges than either one of us. It would also be helpful if you showed at least one article on it so we could be sure that we're talking about the same thing. I believe it is the 'New Science' posts and they already seem to have some obvious flaws, such as his claim of a missing 'hotspot' that is not actually missing and lot of his basis for it being 'missing' seems to come from work that does not appear to be peer reviewed itself. This appears central to his argument and so that's a very bad sign.

Also, do you know what journal it is being reviewed by?

I am unsure what the Ebola thing has to do with this topic and my small contribution to the OPs post regarding Evan's proposition, but if you want to link the two to make some point I guess you could.

If the paper is hosted on a conspiracy crank site that tends to indicate that the people responsible for it have low standards for argument and evidence. It doesn't mean the paper has to be wrong but it's certainly a worrying sign.

 

[OverVolt]

I'm mostly interested in locating the paper to see if other scientists have reviewed or critiqued it as they would be far better judges than either one of us. It would also be helpful if you showed at least one article on it so we could be sure that we're talking about the same thing. I believe it is the 'New Science' posts and they already seem to have some obvious flaws, such as his claim of a missing 'hotspot' that is not actually missing and lot of his basis for it being 'missing' seems to come from work that does not appear to be peer reviewed itself. This appears central to his argument and so that's a very bad sign.

Also, do you know what journal it is being reviewed by?



If the paper is hosted on a conspiracy crank site that tends to indicate that the people responsible for it have low standards for argument and evidence. It doesn't mean the paper has to be wrong but it's certainly a worrying sign.

Hardly anyone is peer-reviewing papers actually and research fraud is on the rise. Vaccines and autism anyone? Its a mess.

Since when did anyone care about a single data point when talking about the climate? To me, it seems desperate.

 

[dphantom]

Forecasting a rapid end to the current El Nino followed by a strong La Nina. Very fast switchover.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/forecasts/sstlim/for4gl.html

 

[dphantom]

I'm mostly interested in locating the paper to see if other scientists have reviewed or critiqued it as they would be far better judges than either one of us. It would also be helpful if you showed at least one article on it so we could be sure that we're talking about the same thing. I believe it is the 'New Science' posts and they already seem to have some obvious flaws, such as his claim of a missing 'hotspot' that is not actually missing and lot of his basis for it being 'missing' seems to come from work that does not appear to be peer reviewed itself. This appears central to his argument and so that's a very bad sign.

Also, do you know what journal it is being reviewed by?



If the paper is hosted on a conspiracy crank site that tends to indicate that the people responsible for it have low standards for argument and evidence. It doesn't mean the paper has to be wrong but it's certainly a worrying sign.

Interesting you spent time looking for the "crank" in your words part of the site but could not find my reference.

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

Those are the first part.

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html

Second part.

I found one has to read and understand all parts to be able to converse. I do not know what journal Dr Evans submitted to only that he indicates he has and expects publication later this year.

The great thing about science is it is never settled. Even someone wrong can often hold a kernel of the truth. That is the challenge to be able to hold an open mind to be able to consider opposing views.

For example speaking to this proposed theory, Dr Evans and Dr Spencer disagree. Who is right? Perhaps neither. Perhaps both have some portion of being correct. Perhaps Dr Evans paper will spark an idea that takes us in a different direction that refutes his work but provides more insight into Earth's climate system.

Anyway, that is all I can do here for now. I have no intent to change anyone's opinion. It's simply a topic I find fascinating but unfortunate most have views so hardened it is not possible for them to change their position regardless of the data.

 

[fskimospy]

Interesting you spent time looking for the "crank" in your words part of the site but could not find my reference.

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-basic.html

Those are the first part.

http://sciencespeak.com/climate-nd-solar.html

Second part.

I mean the crank stuff was pretty easy to find, it's kind of everywhere on that website. The lady who runs it seems to have several screws loose, haha. I asked you for a link so that I could be sure we were talking about the same thing. I don't think that's unreasonable.

I found one has to read and understand all parts to be able to converse. I do not know what journal Dr Evans submitted to only that he indicates he has and expects publication later this year.

The great thing about science is it is never settled. Even someone wrong can often hold a kernel of the truth. That is the challenge to be able to hold an open mind to be able to consider opposing views.

For example speaking to this proposed theory, Dr Evans and Dr Spencer disagree. Who is right? Perhaps neither. Perhaps both have some portion of being correct. Perhaps Dr Evans paper will spark an idea that takes us in a different direction that refutes his work but provides more insight into Earth's climate system.

Anyway, that is all I can do here for now. I have no intent to change anyone's opinion. It's simply a topic I find fascinating but unfortunate most have views so hardened it is not possible for them to change their position regardless of the data.

I'm perfectly open to finding that the threat of AGW is either hugely exaggerated or nonexistent. That would be the best outcome possible. In the case of Dr. Evans however, he has a fairly long history of false statements and shoddy work when it comes to climate science and so it's important to be skeptical of the work he creates today.

The same is true for Dr. Spencer, unfortunately. Not only have his papers been repeatedly torn apart for poor methods and transparent attempts to get them published in nonstandard journals, but he also had this to say as one of the reasons he is a climate change denier:

We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

Climate change isn't real because Jesus.

I would love to see robustly argued, scientifically grounded papers that refute the scientific consensus on climate change. Sadly, none have been forthcoming.

 

[dphantom]

Climate change isn't real because Jesus.

That is not what he said. That is what you said. I have no idea where you think Dr Spencer or anyone else thinks our ever changing climate on this planet is not real.

In fact, I would have to agree that Earth's climate is pretty damn resilient to continue to sustain life through multiple ice ages and even warmer warming events than today yet never pass the bounds of run away cooling or warming. Remarkably resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting.

 

[fskimospy]

That is not what he said. That is what you said. I have no idea where you think Dr Spencer or anyone else thinks our ever changing climate on this planet is not real.

In fact, I would have to agree that Earth's climate is pretty damn resilient to continue to sustain life through multiple ice ages and even warmer warming events than today yet never pass the bounds of run away cooling or warming. Remarkably resilient, self-regulating and self-correcting.

Nope, that's what he said. Clearly I was referring to man made climate change, which he does in fact dispute. He thinks that the large warming we have seen is overwhelmingly due to just a natural warming cycle we are going through because god made the Earth to be the best.

Needless to say, that's a ridiculous position for a scientist to hold. He's also apparently a creationist, which doesn't speak highly to his ability to evaluate scientific evidence either. That craziness aside, his scientific work has also been widely ridiculed for shoddy methods and duplicitous attempts at publication.

None of that means that his work MUST be wrong or anything, but everyone should approach people with such poor track records very skeptically, wouldn't you agree?

 

[bshole]

Anyway, that is all I can do here for now. I have no intent to change anyone's opinion. It's simply a topic I find fascinating but unfortunate most have views so hardened it is not possible for them to change their position regardless of the data.

Not hard for me to change my opinion at all on this topic. When I personally observe catastrophe in the REAL world (not in the models), I would start buying in. My personal experience is continual improvement, year on year. Zero threats to the food supply, etc...