Why bother with a site where everything must be fact-checked?

Apr 23, 2018 at 9:02 AM | Phil Clarke

I think that is what Trump and Pruitt think of the UN's IPCC. If only the IPCC had not trusted each other to Peer Review Mann's Hockey Stick, Climate Science might have evolved into something useful, and respectable.

You could try reading up on the subject

https://nofrakkingconsensus.com/my-book/

"Into the Dustbin: Rajendra Pachauri, the Climate Report & the Nobel Peace Prize"
by Donna Laframboise 

and

"The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert"

Donna’s first book about the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a big-picture exposé.

"The IPCC writes a report informally known as the Climate Bible. Cited by governments around the world, it’s the primary reason we all believe carbon dioxide emissions are dangerous."

"For years, the public was told the IPCC is an eminent, gold-standard organization comprised of the world’s top scientists and best experts. In fact, it is an unprofessional, scandal-plagued entity led by people with impaired judgment. We need to stop taking it seriously ..... "

You still haven't figured out how NoTricksZone works then? He extracts a single graph, strips away any context and posts it as 'proof', in this case of Arctic sea ice extent not being unusual. For example he posts a graph of reconstructed Sea Ice extent from Alekseev et al, but carefully omits the modern observations, which show a steep decline. See figure 1.3 here. for the unmanipulated chart.

Nor does he share the abstract, which includes

An increase of surface air temperature (SAT) in the marine Arctic (a part of the Arctic covered with sea ice in winter) shows a good relationship with reduction of sea ice extent (SIE) in summer. For instance, a strong correlation (a coefficient equal to −0.93) was found between the summer SAT in the marine Arctic and satellite‐derived 1980–2014 September sea ice index (the average of SIE in the Arctic since 1978, in millions of km2). Based on this finding, anomalies of Arctic September SIE were reconstructed from the beginning of 20th century using a linear regression relationship. This reconstructed SIE shows a substantial decrease in the 1930–1940s with a minimum occurring in 1936, which, however, is only a half of the decline in 2012. The strong relationship between the summer SAT and September SIE was used to assess the onset of summer sea ice disappearance in the Arctic Ocean. According to the estimates made with a simple regression model, we can expect a seasonally ice‐free Arctic Ocean as early as in the mid‐2030s. 

No tricks indeed.

From <https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/joc.4550>

Apr 23, 2018 at 4:39 PM | Phil Clarke

You have not explained how Climate Science works but can remain an expert in explaining nothing else either.

The trickery of Climate Science got going with Jones 1990, long before Jones complimented Mann on his Nature Trick, that satisfied Nature the IPCC and their pretence at Peer Review.

Do you think higher or lower of Tom Curtis and Steve McIntyre now you know that they cooperated on correcting Climate Science? They both deserve respect for standing up for factual evidence.

Well, Curtis seems a man of integrity.

But, so far as I know, (and, scandalously, I have not read CA in its entirety), Curtis only corresponded with the Auditor about Lewanowsky, which was not a climate science paper.

Keep calm and carry on, though.

Keep calm and carry on, though.

Apr 23, 2018 at 7:56 PM | Phil Clarke

Climate Science's unprecedented fall in Taxpayer Funding is looking great for almost everyone.

I was intending to remain calm, even manage an occassional smile

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/25/chinas-urban-heat-island-problem/

UHI in China data is part of the missing link in Jones 1990

As Lewis and Curry have raised further questions about lowering ECS

https://judithcurry.com/2018/04/24/impact-of-recent-forcing-and-ocean-heat-uptake-data-on-estimates-of-climate-sensitivity/
Impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity

"We have now updated the LC15 paper with a new paper that has been published in the Journal of Climate “The impact of recent forcing and ocean heat uptake data on estimates of climate sensitivity“.  The paper also addresses critiques of LC15"

It is worth revisiting:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/challenges-constraining-climate-sensitivity.html

"Challenges in Constraining Climate Sensitivity: Should IPCC AR5’s Lower Bound Be Revised Upward?Posted on 11 June 2014 by John Fasullo"

"Equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) refers to the global surface temperature change anticipated as a result of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. As it is tied directly to the net climate feedback, ECS is a useful aggregate measure of some aspects of forced climate change. While it is not a fully holistic metric for understanding a broad range of climate change impacts (e.g. it doesn’t address the details of transient changes or changes in other aspects of the climate system such as the hydrologic cycle), ECS exists as a central focus of attention in characterizing the potential magnitude of anthropogenicclimate change.

Because ECS is not precisely known it is typically quantified by a “likely range”. Multiple approaches exist for estimating the range, though important differences exist between the ranges provided by different techniques. In IPCC AR4, the likely range was estimated at 2-4.5C. In IPCC AR5, a decision was made to reduce the lower bound of this estimated range (1.5-4.5C), in light of several studies using the surface instrumental record and claiming a lower likely range. Since the submission deadline for inclusion in AR5 (July 2012), a number of important updates to the literature have occurred, including an improved evaluation of

The contrasting influence of different forcing types on transient changes (aka forcingefficacy);The phenomenology of the recent hiatus in global surface warming; andThe sensitivity of some of the instrumental studies to data used and base assumptions."

John Fasullo, and the Hockey Team have recognised the problems with 97% of the Consensus of 97% of Settled Climate Science. The references he quotes are interesting.

Will Climate Science reprogramme their models whilst they still have funds?

Climate Scientists have "over programmed" their models with positive feed backs, "under programmed" them with negative feedbacks, and fudged up the rest of it with creative data optimisation.

Anything else? There must be some bits worth saving, over and above the hardware and software that enables improved weather forecasting, that taxpayers would be happy to pay for?

RR

Consider another fact. It is frequently stated that the 13C/12C ratio of CO2 is declining at a rate which proves that the extra CO2 cannot be from the oceans and must be from anthropogenic emissions. Some “experts” go as far as saying that the decline is “precisely” at the rate we would expect if it was entirely due to burning fossil fuels. This is demonstrably false.

There are numerous sources of direct measurements that show that the decline rate of the 13C/12C ratio is much lower than would be the case if it was entirely due to anthropogenic emissions. This fact is actually well known to real climate scientists and is incorporated in their models, but is not widely disseminated for some reason. That may be partly due to some unease regarding their own explanation for the mismatch – the extra 13C (affecting the isotopic ratio but not the CO2 concentration) is assumed to be coming from the oceans!

BTW, there is one “obvious correlation”, which is between temperature and short-term variations in atmospheric CO2 growth rate and is linked to ENSO events (temperature changes precede CO2 growth rate changes).

Apr 28, 2018 at 11:05 AM | JR

Is there any possible causation/correlation link between CO2 levels, and ENSO? Or other variations in ocean currents - the biggest movers, shakers, stirrers and storers of temperature change?

I think the first reference to the probable link was in 1976. Abstract here:

https://www.nature.com/articles/261116a0

There are a number of more recent papers highlighting the correlation of CO2 growth variations with air temperature (with a temp changing first) but, of course, variations in global air temperatures are closely linked to ENSO so the direct cause is debateable. Some discussion about this link (and the delay) can be found here (and checkout his woodfortrees plot linked in the comment):

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/03/27/new-report-reveals-a-23-year-long-pause-in-stratospheric-temperature/#comment-2776020

There does not seem to be much debate about the high level of correlation but there is no absolute proof of causation and hence there are essentially two end-point hypotheses depending on your view of what happens to anthropogenic emissions. If you are a believer that most/all of the atmospheric growth of CO2 is anthropogenic and that emissions exceed growth, the hypothesis is that ENSO events have a direct effect on droughts in the Amazon rain forest. El Niño leads to more extreme drought which then leads to less uptake of anthropogenic CO2, and hence atmospheric CO2 grows more rapidly. La Niña does the opposite, leading to greater uptake of CO2 and hence less growth of atmospheric CO2.

An alternative view is that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are mostly taken up locally by vegetation and that the growth is largely due to a net increase in release of CO2 from the oceans. In this case, the warming waters of the east Pacific Ocean during an El Niño (and the related shutting off of upwelling cold waters) could lead to a net increase in CO2 release. This could also be linked to the die-off of phytoplankton that occurs during an El Niño due to lack of nutrition. During a La Niña, the upwelling brings colder and higher CO2 water and nutrients to the surface, but this additional CO2 may be gobbled up by the concomitant increase in phytoplankton due the increased food supply.

Based on my own analysis, I believe that the 13C/12C ratio of the incremental atmospheric CO2 changes very significantly during ENSO events and is a critical piece of input data, but no-one else seems to be much interested!

Golf Charlie

Global net photosynthesis is smaller during El Nino than La Nina.

With less CO2 being absorbed on land, atmospheric CO2 concentration tends to increase faster during El Nino periods than La Nina periods.

Increasing CO2 is not expected to directly affect ENSO.

In theory one would expect increasing global temperatures to bias ENSO towards El Nino conditions. So far we have seen too few cycles to observe significant change.

There is a measured decrease in AMOC.

but no-one else seems to be much interested!

Apr 28, 2018 at 3:04 PM | JR

Rational people, including scientists are interested!

Unfortunately, Climate Scientists decided without producing evidence or inviting anybody that might disagree, that manmade CO2 is the planet's only Temperature Control Knob. Now they can't produce meeting minutes, or evidence of any meeting at all to back up their science, and they have been rewriting their cover-ups ever since.

The "decision" may just have been the result of too many beers and herbal cigarettes on a seedy evening out. As theories go, it is as plausible as "most" of Climate Science.

JR

Are you finding that the 13C/12C ratio is larger in El Ninos than La Ninas?

You talk about a very significant difference. Do you have numbers and statistics?

Global net photosynthesis is smaller during El Nino than La Nina.
Apr 28, 2018 at 3:31 PM | Entropic man

How are you measuring that, and for how many ENSO cycles is data available?

If photosynthesis controls the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, doesn't all the "melting tundra" "greening Sahara" etc act as a negative feedback?

Apr 28, 2018 at 3:50 PM | Entropic man

No, the opposite: smaller during an El Niño.

No statistics I’m afraid. The data are not really good enough for that. The observation is mainly qualitative, therefore, and is based primarily on directional changes using Scripps’ seasonally corrected data (i.e. with the seasonal cycle removed in order to show longer term trends).

I am sure you all know what δ13C-CO2 is but, just in case, it’s the measured 13C/12C ratio of CO2 calibrated against a standard (VPDB). Where the measured value is less than the standard (fixed) value, the δ13C value is negative, which can be confusing but the thing to remember is that directionally it changes in the same way as the measured ratio. So, if the δ13C becomes more negative, it means the 13C/12C ratio has reduced and there is less 13C and/or more 12C in the CO2 sample.

On average the decline rate of δ13C in atmospheric CO2 reflects the addition of CO2 with a δ13C of -13 per mil and the current atmospheric δ13C is circa -8.5 per mil. So we are adding CO2 with a lower 13C/12C ratio and hence the atmospheric 13C/12C ratio is dropping. When an El Niño kicks in, the δ13C drops more rapidly. This not simply a matter of increased rate of CO2 growth; it requires that the δ13C of the incremental CO2 has become more negative, i.e. it is tending towards levels that would be more consistent with biosphere respiration (-26 per mil) or fossil fuels (-28 per mil). Subsequently, where there is a following La Niña, the rate of growth of CO2 becomes much lower (but still positive) and yet the δ13C is flat or even increasing. In the latter case, this means that the incremental CO2 has a δ13C content that is equal to or above (less negative than) current atmospheric levels. Major eruptions (e.g. Pinatubo) would seem to have a similar effect to that of a La Niña, but we are definitely short on statistics in that case!

JR, golf charlie

My word processor won't let me do sigma13C, I'll use ∆13C.

Photosynthesis is selective. Ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase, generally called RuBisCO, is the enzyme which catalyses uptake of CO2 by plants.
RuBisCO binds to 12CO2 much better than 13CO2. As a result, all organic material derived from photosynthesis has a much more negative ∆13C than the atmosphere.

Fossil fuel turning, respiration and decomposition all release 12CO2 into the atmosphere, diluting 13CO2 and making ∆13CO2 more negative.

We alarmists are watching anxiously for an acceleration in the rate of 13CO2 decline when the melting tundra positive feedback kicks in.

Greening of the Sahara would take 12CO2 out of the atmosphere and act as a negative feedback.

Volcanoes release 13CO2 and 12CO2 in the primaeval ratio, which adds 13C to the atmosphere and would be expected to make ∆13CO2 less negative. Since volcanic emissions average 1% of humanity's emissions, the effect may not even be detectable.

Looking at the Scripps South pole data :-

http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/graphics/isospogr.jpg

The 1991 Pinatubo eruption and the 1997/8 El Nino barely show. You could make a case for slight changes in slope, but it is a big jump from inspection plus confirmation bias to statistical significance.

Apr 29, 2018 at 1:09 PM | Entropic man

Thank you for the response, but how are you measuring changes in "net global photosynthesis" under el nino and la nina conditions, which is what you stated?

Apr 27, 2018 at 1:41 PM | Radical Rodent

The possibility of ECS being less than 2 causes rumbles in projected cash flow for Climate Scientists. Less than 1 would be unprecedented disaster, that has not been considered possible by Climate Scientists, as they have maintained their faith in false assumptions made over 20 years ago.

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2013/5/20/ecs-with-otto.html
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2016/5/13/how-low-can-ecs-go.html

Perhaps we should assume (for round number guesswork purposes) that ECS is 1 (+/-1) reprogram the models accordingly, and OBSERVE what doesn't happen for the next 20 years?

Apr 29, 2018 at 1:09 PM | Entropic man

“The 1991 Pinatubo eruption and the 1997/8 El Nino barely show. You could make a case for slight changes in slope, but it is a big jump from inspection plus confirmation bias to statistical significance.”

I never claimed “statistical significance”. Indeed, I stated that the data were not good enough for statistics. I take it that you are familiar with the English language meaning of significant. Nor did I suffer from “confirmation bias”. I was (and still am) simply trying to understand what the data are telling us. In my response to the important question by golf charlie regarding possible causation of the excellent (and well known) correlation between short-term variations in atmospheric CO2 growth rate and ENSO I presented two possible hypotheses, one of which is my understanding of the climate science position, without taking sides.

In any event, you are looking at the wrong dataset for δ13C. I know this because I am familiar with both the corrected and the uncorrected data. As I clearly stated, you need to use the seasonally corrected data in order to see more clearly the longer term trends which are partly masked by the annual CO2 cycle. I actually prefer to use the South Pole data in general because the annual cycle is smallest there and hence the correction is less significant (!), but I always compare it with the responses seen at Mauna Loa and Point Barrow as well. Even with this error on your part, I am pleased to note that you could still see “slight changes in slope”. Please provide your explanation of what these variations are caused by, bearing in mind that the same changes are clearly visible in the δ13C data everywhere from the South Pole to Point Barrow.

JR

I used the South Pole data because it shows minimum seasonal variation.

http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/graphics/isospogr.jpg

One thing I looked for at Scripps was confidence limit information.

Without that, I have no way of distinguishing between genuine changes and internal variation.

http://cdiac.ess-dive.lbl.gov/trends/co2/iso-sio/iso-sio.html

The calibration papers at the end of the introduction page show an internal variation of about +/- 0.2.

This means that any deviation from the long term trend would need to be twice that to be statistically significant.

The long term trend of 0.7 in 31 years is significant, but none of the shorter term variations are significant. For example, there is a five year flattening around the 1991 Pinatubo eruption.
There is also a 0.2 downward step around the 1998 El Nino, too small to be significant but in the opposite direction to what you expected.

Both are small enough to be noise, rather than causation.

The best I can say of your speculations is "not proven".

JR

The long term decline is due to increasing 12CO2 in the atmosphere. Superimposed onto that are short term variations due to good or bad growing years, ENSO, volcanoes,etc. You can only confidently link a variation in the graph with a variation in the real world when the variation is large enough to stand out from the noise. For this data a significant variation is at least 0.4 above or below the long term trend. The long term is significant. The seasonal cycle at Point Barrow is significant. The effect of ENSO and volcanoes can be inferred from theory, but are too small to show clearly in the data.

This is what I mean by confirmation bias. It is very tempting to see a flat spot in the graph from 1990 and assume it is due to Pinatubo, even though similar patterns also occur randomly without a volcano. Without statistical confirmation that is an opinion, not a conclusion.

Perhaps you could link to the graphs you are referring to and point out the variations you see. Then we can see how valid your conclusions are.

The best I can say of your speculations is "not proven".

Apr 29, 2018 at 8:57 PM | Entropic man

Climate Science has had all the money, and has yet to prove a link between rising CO2 and Global Warming. How much more Taxpayer funding should Trump waste on Climate Science's "speculation"?

As Climate Science experts are now having to rein back on the higher guesstimates for ECS, that have fuelled the Climate Models and scary scenarios, are you relying on the same Peer Reviewed Climate Science to conclude "not proven"?

Is this another example of 97% of Climate Scientists obstructing genuine research into Climate Science?

JR

Incidentally, I am a retired scientist involved in a scientific discussion. I am using "significant" in the scientific sense of statistical confidence and probability, rather than the lay sense.