Global warming believers are feeling the heat
…Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry on the CO2 ‘control knob’ fallacy: ‘This issue of CO2 as a climate control knob has always bugged me’
…Physicist Dr. Lubos Motl takes on RealClimate.org warmist Stefan Rahmstorf on ocean heat content: ‘The change of the temperature [in the oceans] in the recent decades is completely negligible’
I challenge you to find any global ocean heat data, from any layer (but considered globally), that would support the idea of a warming trend exceeding 1.5 (or at least 1) °C per century in any decade of the 20th or 21st century…
Climatologist Dr. Judith Curry to UN IPCC: Curry to IPCC: ‘Once you sort out the uncertainty in climate sensitivity estimates and fix your climate models, let us know’
…PBS’s Charlie Rose Talks to Gore for 30 Minutes Without Mentioning 15 Year Global Warming Standstill
…Monckton rips AP’s Seth Borenstein for touting UN IPCC’s meaningless 95% confidence in man-made global warming: Monckton: It is ‘no more scientific a process than a show of hands’
Dear Mr. Borenstein, – It would be appropriate to assign a statistical confidence interval as part of a statistical analysis of data, and only then. As you will know, a confidence interval of .95 corresponds to two standard deviations from the mean, and .99 to three standard deviations. However, there was no statistical analysis of the question whether most of the global warming since 1950 was attributable to us: therefore, no statistical confidence interval was appropriate, and the IPCC’s attempt to assign a quantified statistical confidence interval to a non-statistical process was inappropriate and, mathematically speaking, contemptible.
As you will also know, the IPCC was rightly criticized for having assigned a 90% confidence interval (not even a standard interval) to its “consensus” proposition in the Fourth Assessment Report. On that occasion, the political representatives of governments took the decision. Many nations wanted to plump for 95%, for purely political reasons (for there was and is no scientific basis for assigning any quantitative value to such a proposition), but China, for purely scientific reasons, wanted no confidence interval at all. In the end, 90% was settled upon as a compromise, and by no more scientific a process than a show of hands. And these people expect to be taken seriously when they demand the shutdown of the West in the name of Saving The Planet.
By the same token, Mr. Severinghaus’ assertion of a 99% confidence interval to the proposition that CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect is meaningless. It is demonstrable by simple experiment that adding CO2 or other greenhouse gases to an atmosphere such as ours will cause a radiative forcing that, ceteris paribus, can be expected to cause some warming.
However, temperature feedbacks, non-radiative transports, temperature homeostasis, and chaos in the climate object are among many complicating factors that make it near-impossible to determine with any reliability – even using probability density functions – how much warming will result from a given quantum of forcing, or when it will result, or how long-acting any temperature feedbacks will be. These and many other uncertainties – including the use of a feedback-amplification function at the heart of the climate-sensitivity equation that manifestly has no physical meaning in the real climate – render it impossible to determine whether most of the warming since 1950 was manmade. Accordingly, the IPCC’s pretence that it is 95% confident that most of the warming since …
New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate: Published in Advances in Space Research finds small changes in solar wind speed may affect both the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] and the Arctic Oscillation [AO] on both short-term [day-to-day] and long-term [inter-annual] timescales’
New paper finds another amplification mechanism by which the Sun controls climate
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-finds-another-amplification.html
A paper published today in Advances in Space Research finds small changes in solar wind speed may affect both the North Atlantic Oscillation [NAO] and the Arctic Oscillation [AO] on both short-term [day-to-day] and long-term [inter-annual] timescales. Both the NAO and AO in turn have major effects upon global climate. The authors propose these effects are related to “A connection via the global atmospheric electric circuit and cloud microphysical changes” [similar but not the same as the cloud seeding hypothesis of Svensmark et al]. The paper may demonstrate yet another amplification mechanism by which tiny changes in solar activity can be amplified to produce large effects upon climate.
Fig. 2. Superposed epoch analyses of daily values of NAO (a) and (d), AO (b) and (e) and the SWS [solar wind speed] itself in km/s (c) and (f), with the key days being minima in the SWS in winters (Nov.–March). The low-volcanic eras (1967-1983, 1985-1993 and 1995-2011) are on the left (a)–(c) and the high volcanic eras (Nov. 1963-March 1966, Nov. 1983-March 1985, Nov.1993-Mar. 1995) are on the right (d)-(f). The solid lines are the mean of parameters of all the events and the dashed lines are the error of the mean value.
Effects on winter circulation of short and long term solar wind changes
Limin Zhoua, ,
Brian Tinsleyb, , ,
Jing Huanga
a Key Laboratory of Geographic Information Science, East China Normal University, China
b University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX, 75080, USA
Highlights
•
Day-to-day changes in the Arctic Oscillation and North Atlantic Oscillation correlate with relativistic electron precipitation, as do interannual changes.
•
A connection via the global atmospheric electric circuit and cloud microphysical changes is suggested.
Abstract
Indices of the North Atlantic Oscillation and the Arctic Oscillation show correlations on the day-to-day timescale with the solar wind speed (SWS). Minima in the indices were found on days of SWS minima during years of high stratospheric aerosol loading. The spatial distribution of surface pressure changes during 1963-2011 with day-to-day changes in SWS shows a pattern resembling the NAO. Such a pattern was noted for year-to-year variations by Boberg and Lundstedt (2002), who compared NAO variations with the geo-effective solar wind electric field (the monthly average SWS multiplied by the average southward component, i.e., negative Bz component, of the interplanetary magnetic field). The spatial …
The Gore Effect Strikes UN Global Warming Meeting: Just in time for the UN IPCC meeting: Unusual cold hits Stockholm
…Steve McIntyre demolishes the credibility of the IPCC as a scientific organization, demonstrating why the IPCC will be unable to explain the ‘pause’ due to their willful obstruction of the science contrary to their political narrative
…New paper predicts an increase of thunderstorms; Reality check: US thunderstorms peaked in the mid-20th century when CO2 was ‘safe’
New paper predicts an increase of thunderstorms; Reality check: US thunderstorms peaked in the mid-20th century when CO2 was ‘safe’
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2013/09/new-paper-predicts-increase-of.html
A new paper claims CMIP5 climate models, which have been falsified by 3 peer-reviewed papers, project that thunderstorm activity will increase in the future. However, prior work has shown US thunderstorm activity peaked in the mid-20th century when CO2 was ‘safe,’ the opposite of what would be expected from the modelling results.
In addition, the authors state that the models predict a decrease in vertical wind shear, which decreases the potential for thunderstorms and tornadoes. The authors claim the models predict an opposing increase in convective available potential energy (CAPE), although if this was true, current global accumulated cyclone energy would not be near the lowest values of the past 40 years.
Global Warming Is Likely to Increase Severe Thunderstorm Conditions in U.S., Research FindsSep. 23, 2013 — Severe thunderstorms, often exhibiting destructive rainfall, hail and tornadoes, are one of the primary causes of catastrophic losses in the United States. New climate models suggest a robust increase in these types of storms across the country.
In 2012, 11 weather disasters in the United States crossed the billion-dollar threshold in economic losses. Seven of those events were related to severe thunderstorms.New climate analyses led by Stanford [aka “global warming central”] scientists indicate that global warming is likely to cause a robust increase in the conditions that produce these types of storms across much of the country over the next century.Severe thunderstorms are one of the primary causes of catastrophic losses in the United States and often exhibit the conditions that generate heavy rainfall, damaging winds, hail and tornadoes.Sparse historical data describing the atmospheric conditions that cause severe thunderstorms has limited scientists’ ability to project the long-term effects of global warming on storm frequency. But, using a complex ensemble of physics-based climate models, researchers led by Noah Diffenbaugh, an associate professor of environmental Earth system science at Stanford, have produced the most comprehensive projections of severe storm conditions for the next century.Scientists have identified two main ingredients involved in generating a severe thunderstorm. The first is that the atmosphere must contain a significant amount of what scientists call convective available potential energy (CAPE), created as the air in the low atmosphere warms. The warm air rises, carrying with it moisture to higher altitudes. [Note if CAPE was actually increasing, global accumulated …