nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Arctic Sea Ice Watch

Harps

Just a few weeks now until we should be seeing the sea ice at it's lowest for the year before the Arctic starts to freeze over again. So far, ice is again well below average though things are looking a lot more healthy than last years record low

A few links..

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

http://www.natice.noaa.gov/ims/

Also of interest is than Antarctic Ice is again this year looking like being the most extensive on record

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

It's up to you to show that natural warming would lead to such a rapid change during a time when the sun is in an inactive phase

According to NASA, naturally it would take 5000 years to warm about 5 degrees. We have already warmed .7 degrees in the past 100 years, that's 10 times faster than natural warming, and are on track to have between 2 and 6 degrees of warming over the next century, which is something that is unprecedented over since humans have existed as a species.

Its not just the levels of warming, it's how fast it's happening that are alarming to climate scientists

I make it about 0.9 degrees warming in the past 100 years, about 0.35 of which was the natural pre-1940 warming.

From AR5...

Gaoth Laidir

Anyway, back on topic, Arctic extent is now currently running at or just above 2012 levels.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I make it about 0.9 degrees warming in the past 100 years, about 0.35 of which was the natural pre-1940 warming.

From AR5...

You're assuming that pre 1940s warming was all natural. Actually, we had increased the concentration of CO2 by 15ppm by 1940 which would have contributed to .22 of a degree warming out of that .35 observed warming.

But regardless, even taking your figures, temperatures are still rising around 10 times the natural warming rate, and by the end of the century, they'll be rising st 20 times the natural rate.

The sun is producing slightly less energy than it was 30 year ago but temperatures are significantly higher.
[img]https://skepticalscience.com/pics/PMOD_TSI.jpg[/quote] With 'global brightening' there is slightly more energy reaching the surface, but this is correction for global dimming which only became an issue in the 1950s with the rise of motorised transport and increases in electricity consumption Between the 1950s and 1980s, global dimming masked global warming, and now that there is a partial reduction in the dimming effect, we are seeing faster increases in temperatures. But even during the time when global dimming was suppressing temperatures, global warming still overpowered the dimming effect and there was still a warming trend. In the southern hemisphere, there was a much lower dimming effect as sulfur dioxide pollution was much lower than in the NH, so we see a more consistent warming trend in the SH than in the NH, but in both hemispheres, the rate of warming has been increasing so the curve is still trending upwards.[/img]https://fallmeeting.agu.org/2015/files/2015/12/Wild-slides.pdf

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

You're assuming that pre 1940s warming was all natural. Actually, we had increased the concentration of CO2 by 15ppm by 1940 which would have contributed to .22 of a degree warming out of that .35 observed warming.

I'm not assuming anything. It is widely acknowledged, even by the IPCC, that the 1910-40 warming was almost all due to solar activity.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

I'm not assuming anything. It is widely acknowledged, even by the IPCC, that the 1910-40 warming was almost all due to solar activity.

I was mistaken in my figure of .22 degrees of warming due to co2, the actual figure was probably closer to .15 of a degree due to lag as heat is sequestered in the oceans. Its still between a third and a half of the observed warming and significant warming of the oceans which is the main heat reservoir driving our climate.

https://skepticalscience.com/pre-1940-warming-causes-and-logic.html

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I was mistaken in my figure of .22 degrees of warming due to co2, the actual figure was probably closer to .15 of a degree due to lag as heat is sequestered in the oceans. Its still between a third and a half of the observed warming and significant warming of the oceans which is the main heat reservoir driving our climate.

https://skepticalscience.com/pre-1940-warming-causes-and-logic.html

Well, if you want to be fair about it, they state a range of 0.10 to 0.15 °C, so it could also be nearer to a quarter the total warming, taking the lower limit of that range.

As I keep harping on about, it would appear that estimates of climate sensitivity (degrees warming for a doubling of CO2) are well overdone in current GCMs, with the IPCC quoting 1.5-4.5 °C, more likely around 3. This does not correlate with observational trends and Bates has put this down to their handling of the tropics and extratropics.

AR5 shows observations right on the lower limit of the model forecasts, showing a statistically significant support for this hypothesis. The recent El Niño warm years notwithstanding, I would expect to see the next few years back down on the trend of the start of this decade.

Oneiric 3

June's heatwave in Western Europa directly linked to Climate Change, say scientists:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/30/europes-extreme-june-heat-clearly-linked-to-climate-change-research-shows

Gaoth Laidir

Oneiric 3 wrote: »

June's heatwave in Western Europa directly linked to Climate Change, say scientists:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/30/europes-extreme-june-heat-clearly-linked-to-climate-change-research-shows

Quite a definitive headline, until you read the report further. It is all based on model simulations, with the initial starting assumption that the heatwave was caused by aghg. It focuses on probabilities and does not once mention any synoptic details of this June. So yes, the probability increases with increased ghg, however their 90% confidence that this particular event was due to agw is still open to scrutiny when they don't look at local synoptics at the time.

Wild fires are an annual occurrence in many Mediterranean countries. I see them annually in Sardinia, and what's more, they are more prevalent in strong cool maestrale setups, when cool dry northwesterly winds establish with a Genoa low. Portugal is similar. June's fires were caused by a lightning bolt, not heat. The fact that 63 people died is tragic but was down to factors other than heat. Dry spells are the norm in southern countries. Dry vegetation + a lightning bolt and stiff winds is a recipe for disaster no matter what the country. We see that annually in Ireland too.

High nighttime minima in a large metropolis like Paris is also nothing surprising. Nor are high maxima in Heathrow, which is consistently in a hot bowl and annually producing temperatures several degrees higher than other areas. Such a signal points at urbanisation issues as much as ghg.

https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses/europe-heat-june-2017/

Still, the difference between the Risk Ratios derived from observations and most models is sizeable. As we verified that the variability is similar (we rejected a model with too high variability) and as we corrected for biases in the mean, this is mainly due to differing estimates of the effect of anthropogenic emissions on summer temperatures in Europe. This difference is especially large in Tmax in Portugal and Spain. The discrepancy was found for CMIP3 models in southern Europe (van Oldenborgh et al, 2009) and also present for 3-day extremes in the summer of 2015 (Sippel et al, 2016). The cause for the differing trends is unknown. A first possibility is inhomogeneous observations, although the time series for Switzerland and the Netherlands are based on homogenised series. Part of the discrepancy could be due to random weather fluctuations, even though the high value for 2017 that is not included in the trend estimate is evidence against that. There could be decadal or longer time scale variability, but the autocorrelations of the residuals are compatible with white noise after subtracting the trend as a factor times the smoothed global mean temperature (in Belgium there is a step downward around 1950, whilst the CNT and CET show relatively cool weather in the 1970s and 1980s connected to air pollution). Finally, there may be model deficiencies in this area that cause a trend underestimation. However, for the whole SREX MED (Mediterranean) region, observed trends agree well with CMIP5. Maybe all these explanations contribute somewhat.

M.T. Cranium

This thread was something I published on the subject of Canadian arctic climate variations in the recent past.

https://www.netweather.tv/forum/topic/87367-climate-change-study-at-cambridge-bay-and-resolute-nu-canada-1940-to-2016/?page=1

I have been investigating techniques to separate out natural and anthropogenic warming, the devil is in the details of course, and it gets very complicated very quickly. First of all, if oceans warm, how much of that is natural and how much human caused?

As to projections, it's clear from this Canadian arctic data that warming accelerated around 2006 to 2012 then backed off in the past four years. Much depends on whether we see another surge forward, or perhaps the 2006 to 2012 interval turns out to be a secular peak not revisited, or maybe (a more likely outcome as a guess) we see a general flattening out near that zone.

I have the feeling that the first half of any warming whatever the cause is easier than the second half, as various feedback constraints start to kick in. One constraint is simply the difficulty of melting more substantial land ice once you establish a more poleward limit of sea ice. Another constraint is the feedback from melting polar ice, that tends to lower sea surface temperatures, and also it can increase snowfall around the margins. This is why I chose some frost and snowfall parameters in my study. People can debate all they want about temperature records but there's less chance of anybody nudging the data on snow cover. That has shown a tendency to change over time but basically I don't think the arctic climate has changed as much as the media portrayal suggests, what is probably true about it, is that the snow on the Canadian arctic islands now melts a week or two earlier and has that same delay in getting re-established. But there is still a lot more variability year to year than there is overall.

Anyway, there is some additional discussion of all this over on that Net-weather thread and the next five to fifteen years will be interesting, will trends continue to shift or will we see a steady-state climate emerge? I have always been a little skeptical of the larger estimates of the IPCC not because I think there is bad science but more because I think feedback is underestimated and we cannot be that sure that trends currently observed are not largely natural, see 1700 to 1738 in CET records for a rather similar natural warming. It is possible for the atmosphere to shift without our help and this has happened many times since the end of the last major glacial period.

Gaoth Laidir

We are continually learning more and more about how climate works, and, where in the past the "consensus" stated that X is due to aghg, the agw stick that is used so many times to beat us with is now getting a bit splintered. Case in point...

Polvani 2016 shows that Ozone-Depleting Substances (ODS), and not GHG, were the cause of tropical stratospheric cooling over the past four decades. The abrupt halt in the lower stratosphere (TLS) cooling ij the tropics since 1997 is even said to change the Brewer Dobson circulation, affecting downwelling as far north and south as the poles.

The impact of ozone-depleting substances on global lower-stratospheric temperature trends is widely recognized. In the tropics, however, understanding lower-stratospheric temperature trends has proven more challenging. While the tropical lower-stratospheric cooling observed from 1979 to 1997 has been linked to tropical ozone decreases, those ozone trends cannot be of chemical origin, as active chlorine is not abundant in the tropical lower stratosphere. The 1979–97 tropical ozone trends are believed to originate from enhanced upwelling, which, it is often stated, would be driven by increasing concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases. This study, using simple arguments based on observational evidence after 1997, combined with model integrations with incrementally added single forcings, argues that trends in ozone-depleting substances, not well-mixed greenhouse gases, have been the primary driver of temperature and ozone trends in the tropical lower stratosphere until 1997, and this has occurred because ozone-depleting substances are key drivers of tropical upwelling and, more generally, of the entire Brewer–Dobson circulation.

Akrasia

I had never heard of Polvani before, I wonder where you came across him?

Do you mind if I ask you where you find these papers?

I looked him up, he seems to be a reputable character who publishes a lot of research into ozone and it's effects on the atmosphere. He's not a climate skeptic, he uses the climate models that you are critical of, his work is on tweaking them so that they better account for the effects of O3 depletion and to make the models better. The paper you quote looks only at the proposed upwelling of ghgs in the lower stratosphere as a posited explanation for observed lower stratospheric cooling.

He has published other papers that show that the ozone hole has had minimal impact on the rising temperatures at the poles because 97% of the radiation is reflected back due to the high albido.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/pubs.html
At the poles, the greenhouse effect is the driving force of global warming because it traps radiation that would otherwise be reflected out to space. In the rest of the world, the ozone layer is mostly intact so if Ozone depletion was to have a major impact on the current global warming, it would happen at the poles.

You have mentioned before that the AR5 is out of date and that there have been big changes to the scientific understanding of climate sensitivity since then, and I should wait until AR6 to see this reflected.
I genuinely cannot understand this attitude. The very best science we have is the AR5 report in it's entirety and that paints a picture of a climate emergency with a very high degree of confidence. Waiting 5 more years for the next report is madness when global warming is accelerating as we speak

http://climatechange.cornell.edu/is-climate-change-slowing-down-2/

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I had never heard of Polvani before, I wonder where you came across him?

Do you mind if I ask you where you find these papers?

I looked him up, he seems to be a reputable character who publishes a lot of research into ozone and it's effects on the atmosphere. He's not a climate skeptic, he uses the climate models that you are critical of, his work is on tweaking them so that they better account for the effects of O3 depletion and to make the models better. The paper you quote looks only at the proposed upwelling of ghgs in the lower stratosphere as a posited explanation for observed lower stratospheric cooling.

He has published other papers that show that the ozone hole has had minimal impact on the rising temperatures at the poles because 97% of the radiation is reflected back due to the high albido.
http://www.columbia.edu/~lmp/pubs.html
At the poles, the greenhouse effect is the driving force of global warming because it traps radiation that would otherwise be reflected out to space. In the rest of the world, the ozone layer is mostly intact so if Ozone depletion was to have a major impact on the current global warming, it would happen at the poles.

You have mentioned before that the AR5 is out of date and that there have been big changes to the scientific understanding of climate sensitivity since then, and I should wait until AR6 to see this reflected.
I genuinely cannot understand this attitude. The very best science we have is the AR5 report in it's entirety and that paints a picture of a climate emergency with a very high degree of confidence. Waiting 5 more years for the next report is madness when global warming is accelerating as we speak

http://climatechange.cornell.edu/is-climate-change-slowing-down-2/

Again it seems that your first port of call is to look at the credentials of the author before the content itself. Once satisfied that he is not a "climate skeptic" (there's that term again) you then move onto the content. I'm glad you found the time to go through his paper at least. Pity you don't have the time to read Bates' one.

Polvani came up in another paper I was reading. These papers are out there in the published world. I'm not sure why you're asking me where I find them. I'm reading the published work since AR5 and I would recommend anyone else do likewise. My comment to you to wait for AR6 was a tongue-in-cheek response to your insistence on looking no more recent than AR5. I said if you want to wait, fine, meanwhile papers are being published weekly. These will all go into the mix for AR6 but if you want to wait then no problem.

The point of my post on Polvani was merely that we are constantly refining our understanding of the complex climate system and sometimes what was believed to be the case turns out not to be. That was all.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again it seems that your first port of call is to look at the credentials of the author before the content itself. Once satisfied that he is not a "climate skeptic" (there's that term again) you then move onto the content. I'm glad you found the time to go through his paper at least. Pity you don't have the time to read Bates' one.

Polvani came up in another paper I was reading. These papers are out there in the published world. I'm not sure why you're asking me where I find them. I'm reading the published work since AR5 and I would recommend anyone else do likewise. My comment to you to wait for AR6 was a tongue-in-cheek response to your insistence on looking no more recent than AR5. I said if you want to wait, fine, meanwhile papers are being published weekly. These will all go into the mix for AR6 but if you want to wait then no problem.

The point of my post on Polvani was merely that we are constantly refining our understanding of the complex climate system and sometimes what was believed to be the case turns out not to be. That was all.

There are dozens of papers published every year in climate science and related fields.
There are loads of studies showing that global warming is happening and is worse than previously thought. A large number of studies that question the climate sensitivity or provide additional detail to improve how the models should account for the various feedbacks, and then there are the cranks and propaganda that are published by professional deniers and contrarians and paid PR for the energy industry or other large polluters.

It's easy to do a link dump, to google for a paper that supports an argument. I try not to do this by only referring to sources that are trustworthy, in reputable journals and by properly qualified experts in the field. This is why I asked you for where you get your sources. There are so many papers out there that a layperson couldn't read them all, but there are denialist blogs that spread misinformation and only report on papers that are critical of the consensus, so if you think that the most recent evidence is going to overturn AR5's main conclusions, then I wonder if you're maybe reading certain blogs that are pushing that slant?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again it seems that your first port of call is to look at the credentials of the author before the content itself. Once satisfied that he is not a "climate skeptic" (there's that term again) you then move onto the content. I'm glad you found the time to go through his paper at least. Pity you don't have the time to read Bates' one.

Polvani came up in another paper I was reading. These papers are out there in the published world. I'm not sure why you're asking me where I find them. I'm reading the published work since AR5 and I would recommend anyone else do likewise. My comment to you to wait for AR6 was a tongue-in-cheek response to your insistence on looking no more recent than AR5. I said if you want to wait, fine, meanwhile papers are being published weekly. These will all go into the mix for AR6 but if you want to wait then no problem.

The point of my post on Polvani was merely that we are constantly refining our understanding of the complex climate system and sometimes what was believed to be the case turns out not to be. That was all.

There are dozens of papers published every year in climate science and related fields.
There are loads of studies showing that global warming is happening and is worse than previously thought. A large number of studies that question the climate sensitivity or provide additional detail to improve how the models should account for the various feedbacks, and then there are the cranks and propaganda that are published by professional deniers and contrarians and paid PR for the energy industry or other large polluters.

It's easy to do a link dump, to google for a paper that supports an argument. I try not to do this by only referring to sources that are trustworthy, in reputable journals and by properly qualified experts in the field. This is why I asked you for where you get your sources. There are so many papers out there that a layperson couldn't read them all, but there are denialist blogs that spread misinformation and only report on papers that are critical of the consensus, so if you think that the most recent evidence is going to overturn AR5's main conclusions, then I wonder if you're maybe reading certain blogs that are pushing that slant?

How do you know what's in these papers if you don't have the time to read them? Sometimes it seems like you're treating this like a conspiracy theory in that if anyone writes something you believe to question "the consensus" then they're "crank/skeptic/professional denier". Your second paragraph above illustrates this. You support those papers that say warming is getting worse but anything else is rubbish. Bates - a former IPCC expert reviewer - published a paper detailing possible refinements to the models - something you seem to support - but yet you chose not to read it, instead trying to blacken his name. I note that you still haven't replied with the lobby group who you allege employ him. For the record, I attended an Irish Met Society lecture in which he went through his paper. Is the IMS now a propaganda organisation for hosting him?

I read all papers that I can, from all arguments and authors. I have read AR5. I have read some of what has been published since. Am I saying that AR6 will turn AR5 on its head? No, it most likely won't, however you seem to be implying that I do. You say you have no time and are not qualified to read Bates' paper, so how can you have time read all the ones that you do want to read? It seems the cherries are having a bumper season...

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

How do you know what's in these papers if you don't have the time to read them? Sometimes it seems like you're treating this like a conspiracy theory in that if anyone writes something you believe to question "the consensus" then they're "crank/skeptic/professional denier". Your second paragraph above illustrates this. You support those papers that say warming is getting worse but anything else is rubbish. Bates - a former IPCC expert reviewer - published a paper detailing possible refinements to the models - something you seem to support - but yet you chose not to read it, instead trying to blacken his name. I note that you still haven't replied with the lobby group who you allege employ him. For the record, I attended an Irish Met Society lecture in which he went through his paper. Is the IMS now a propaganda organisation for hosting him?

I read all papers that I can, from all arguments and authors. I have read AR5. I have read some of what has been published since. Am I saying that AR6 will turn AR5 on its head? No, it most likely won't, however you seem to be implying that I do. You say you have no time and are not qualified to read Bates' paper, so how can you have time read all the ones that you do want to read? It seems the cherries are having a bumper season...

I'm sorry, but I'm having an increasingly harder time taking this Ray Bates guy seriously. I went onto his website where he lists his recent newspaper articles. The top one is a letter he wrote to the Irish Farmers Journal in response to a letter from An Taisce who were outraged that a contrarian article was published that urged no action on limiting co2 pollution. In response, Ray Bates referred back to Richard Lindzen's work on the Iris effect which hasn't been proven

We suggest that the tightening of the ascending branch of the
Hadley Circulation is an important process that contributes to the
decrease of tropical-mean high cloud fraction.
• We find that the high cloud sensitivity to surface temperature is a
primary source for the inter-model spread in the longwave
radiative feedback and hydrological sensitivity.
• However, the “iris effect” is not a dominant factor that contributes
to the inter-model spread in climate sensitivity.
https://isccp.giss.nasa.gov/Rossow_Symposium/pdf/B1_Su.pdf

with it's results challenged in multiple peer reviewed papers (but you probably already know that) so he mentioned a 2015 paper by Mauritsen-Stevens which used models to test for an Iris effect and found that some models might suggest that there is a plausible effect, but it is a small one that is an order of magnitude lower than the Lindzen Choi paper suggested, and finally, he mentions another paper by Willie Soon, and two Irish global warming deniers, the Connollys. Willie Soon is one of the least credible scientists out there, he published a paper with Christopher Monkton, a man up there with Ronald McDonald in his scientific integrity. Willie Soon has had his reputation in tatters for a decade following a spate of shamefully bad publications, and revelations that he failed to disclose conflicts of interest in his funding. The Connollys are a father and son who run their own 'research company' and also set up their own 'peer reviewed journal' purely to publish their own research without ever being reviewed by anyone else. Their only other climate change research publications are co-authored by Willie Soon.

These guys are total deniers with no credibility in the field of climate science, who think the peer review system is corrupt so they set up their own journal. The fact that Ray Bates chose to use them to support his argument that his own position is credible shows just how little actual academic support his positions must have.

I know you're going to say that all of this is just a series of ad hominem attack and that these papers should be taken on their own merits and not dismissed because they've been written by a series of charlatans and paid shills, but give me a break here. When a scientist is prepared to co-author a paper with Christopher feckin Monkton, then there is something seriously wrong, and the Connollys aren't just arguing that climate sensitivity is over stated, they say that there is no greenhouse effect at all. And if Professor Ray Bates wants to be associated with these kinds of people, then it's his choice, but I won't be taking him seriously.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

How do you know what's in these papers if you don't have the time to read them? Sometimes it seems like you're treating this like a conspiracy theory in that if anyone writes something you believe to question "the consensus" then they're "crank/skeptic/professional denier". Your second paragraph above illustrates this. You support those papers that say warming is getting worse but anything else is rubbish. Bates - a former IPCC expert reviewer - published a paper detailing possible refinements to the models - something you seem to support - but yet you chose not to read it, instead trying to blacken his name. I note that you still haven't replied with the lobby group who you allege employ him. For the record, I attended an Irish Met Society lecture in which he went through his paper. Is the IMS now a propaganda organisation for hosting him?

I read all papers that I can, from all arguments and authors. I have read AR5. I have read some of what has been published since. Am I saying that AR6 will turn AR5 on its head? No, it most likely won't, however you seem to be implying that I do. You say you have no time and are not qualified to read Bates' paper, so how can you have time read all the ones that you do want to read? It seems the cherries are having a bumper season...

I'm sorry, but I'm having an increasingly harder time taking this Ray Bates guy seriously. I went onto his website where he lists his recent newspaper articles. The top one is a letter he wrote to the Irish Farmers Journal in response to a letter from An Taisce who were outraged that a contrarian article was published that urged no action on limiting co2 pollution. In response, Ray Bates referred back to Richard Lindzen's work on the Iris effect which has very little credibility with it's results challenged in multiple peer reviewed papers (but you probably already know that) so he mentioned a 2015 paper by Mauritsen-Stevens which used models test for an Irish effect and found that some models might suggest that there is an effect, but it is a small one that is an order of magnitude lower than the Lindzen Choi paper suggested, and finally, he mentions another paper by Willie Soon, and two Irish global warming deniers, the Connollys. Willie Soon is one of the least credible scientists out there, he published a paper with Christopher Monkton, a man up there with Ronald McDonald in his scientific integrity. Willie Soon has had his reputation in tatters for a decade following a spate of shamefully bad publications, and revelations that he failed to disclose conflicts of interest in his funding. The Connollys are a father and son who run their own 'research company' and also set up their own 'peer reviewed journal' purely to publish their own research without ever being reviewed by anyone else. Their only other climate change research publications are co-authored by Willie Soon.

These guys are total deniers with no credibility in the field of climate science, who think the peer review system is corrupt so they set up their own journal. The fact that Ray Bates chose to use them to support his argument that his own position is credible shows just how little actual academic support his positions must have.

I know you're going to say that all of this is just a series of ad hominem attack and that these papers should be taken on their own merits and not dismissed because they've been written by a series of charlatans and paid shills, but give me a break here. When a scientist is prepared to co-author a paper with Christopher feckin Monkton, then there is something seriously wrong, and the Connollys aren't just arguing that climate sensitivity is over stated, they say that there is no greenhouse effect at all. And if Professor Ray Bates wants to be associated with these kinds of people, then it's his choice, but I won't be taking him seriously.

So which is the lobby group that employs him?

Have you read his 2016 paper? Not NEWSpaper, his actual scientific paper. You're doing everything but read it. I think Bates' CV stretches a lot further than these Connolly guys. I never heard of them.

Gaoth Laidir

And on the Iris Effect; this paper from last month revisits the original theory and, based on observations over 15 years, lends some support for the tropical negative feedback mechanism. Again, this is along the lines of Bates' two-zone model theory.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JD025827/abstract

Plain Language Summary

The Earth may have a cooling mechanism, so called the iris effect, under green house gas forcing, as if human eyes control the light influx. This feedback process of the tropical cloud to increased sea surface temperature is confirmed using various satellite observation. It is found that the precipitation efficiency increases as the temperature increases and the cirrus decreases as the precipitation efficiency increases in the tropical Western Pacific. This negative relationship suggests the presence of the cooling mechanism (negative feedback). Our climate models also tend to show lower warming rate if the observed negative relationship is properly mimicked, vice versa

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

So which is the lobby group that employs him?

Have you read his 2016 paper? Not NEWSpaper, his actual scientific paper.

I've read it but for the last time, I'm not a climatologist, nor am I a meteorologist or an atmospheric scientist, so I am not qualified to assess whether the claims he makes are accurate or the best representation of the evidence.
And I suspect, neither are you.
Here's a different version of an extract of his paper.

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"><head><script type="text/javascript" src="/dtagent_ICAp_6000500171012.js" data-dtconfig="rid=RID_1638479746|rpid=314518628|domain=wiley.com|lab=1|reportUrl=dynaTraceMonitor|agentUri=/dtagent_ICAp_6000500171012.js"></script><script type="text/javascript" xml:space="preserve">
//<![CDATA[
var wol1datalayer = window.wol1datalayer ? wol1datalayer : {};

wol1datalayer.channel="JOURNALS"
wol1datalayer.events="event11"
wol1datalayer.pageName=""
wol1datalayer.prop1="FULLTEXT"
wol1datalayer.prop10="Open"
wol1datalayer.prop11="PDF and HTML"
wol1datalayer.prop12="425"
wol1datalayer.prop13="10.1002/(ISSN)2333-5084"
wol1datalayer.prop14="10.1002/2015EA000154"
wol1datalayer.prop15="10.1002/ess2.v3.5"
wol1datalayer.prop18="06 MAY 2016"
wol1datalayer.prop2="READCUBE FULLTEXT_PDF"
wol1datalayer.prop20=""
wol1datalayer.prop26="Guest"
wol1datalayer.prop28="Regional Provision"
wol1datalayer.prop3="Earth and Space Science"
wol1datalayer.prop4="ES12,ESZ0,ES13,ES30,ES50,ES70,PH10"
wol1datalayer.prop5=""
wol1datalayer.prop6=""
wol1datalayer.prop7="Estimating climate sensitivity using two‐zone energy balance models"
wol1datalayer.prop8="3/5"
wol1datalayer.prop9="Open / Open"
wol1datalayer.server="onlinelibrary.wiley.com"

var digitalData = window.digitalData ? digitalData : {};
digitalData.customerIds = ;
digitalData.adData = {
network_id : '2215',
subject_id : 'wly.earth.sci_000045',
journal_id : 'earth-space-science_ESS2',
targeting : {
'WOL-Page-Type': 'FULLTEXT',
'WOL-Page-Subtype': 'READCUBE FULLTEXT_PDF',
'WOL-Subject-Codes': 'ES12,ESZ0,ES13,ES30,ES50,ES70,PH10',
'WOL-Article-Access-State': 'Open / Open',
'WOL-Pub-Access-Status': 'Open',
'WOL-Article-Availability': 'PDF and HTML',
'WOL-Journal-DOI': '10.1002/(ISSN)2333-5084',
'WOL-Article-Chapter-DOI': '10.1002/2015EA000154',
'WOL-Issue-DOI': '10.1002/ess2.v3.5',
'WOL-User-login-Status': 'Guest',
'gs_cat': '', // Grapeshot
'ksg': '', // Krux
'kuid': '' // Krux
}
}

Based on that, can you tell me if his global warming skepticism is well founded or not?

Unless you're able to read HTML, that probably makes no sense to you. I rely on the experts in the field to assess his claims and I can only judge him based on how his findings fit in with the expert opinion on the subject.

You're doing everything but read it. I think Bates' CV stretches a lot further than these Connolly guys. I never heard of them.

You hadn't heard of them, but Bates was happy to use them to support his letter to the Farmers Journal in response to An Taisce's outrage that they were peddling contrarian denialism as science. It's ironic that he would choose this particular paper as justification that the Farmers journal article was mainstream science, he was clearly relying on the fact that the vast majority of people reading his letter will never have heard of Willie Soon or the Connollys and wouldn't know the background. Their position is anything but mainstream, anything but the best science available, and Bates, by choosing to write a letter in opposition to An Taisce and in support of these people's research, has entangled himself further into their sphere of contrarian science.

Regarding industry funded organisations he is involved with,
The Irish Climate Science Forum which he is a founder, claims to be voluntary but has strong links to other 'think tanks' who are heavily funded by the energy industry.

Richard Lindzen, who is currently funded by the american coal industry seems to be one of Bate's key sources of inspiration for his position on climate change. Ray bates might trust Lindzen, but even his former colleagues at MIT have strongly condemned his position on climate change, as they have done in an open letter to Trump contradicting Lindzen's call for Trump to pull out of the Paris Agreement which was full of lies and inaccurate science.

http://blog.ucsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/annotated-lindzen-letter.jpg
Here is what Lindzen's colleagues had to say about that,

http://climate-science.mit.edu/news/featured-stories/mit-faculty-working-on-climate-write-to-president-trump

Combine this with Bate's flurry of articles urging that the irish farming industry not be bound by any efforts to curb CO2, and the we have a picture of a man who has strayed outside his area of expertise and associated himself with notorious industry shills to make claims that are not supported by the vast majority of experts in the field or the evidence which is now ubiquitous that the world is warming rapidly and if we don't act now and fast, there will be no telling the harm that we will have done to our biosphere and it's capacity to sustain our human population (and a large percentage of non human species)

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

And on the Iris Effect; this paper from last month revisits the original theory and, based on observations over 15 years, lends some support for the tropical negative feedback mechanism. Again, this is along the lines of Bates' two-zone model theory.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2016JD025827/abstract

Most of the papers are behind pay walls, but from the discussions I have seen, these papers are pointing at the Iris Effect maybe having a plausible mechanism which may reduce climate sensitivity, but they're talking about an change of .2 degrees over a century rather than the effect offsetting global warming entirely, or to a significant amount.

Look how long we've spent arguing about these couple of papers about one small aspect of climate sensitivity
I just searched for Climate Change papers published in Journals from 2017 alone and only included scientific fields relevant to climate change, and I got 24,000 results
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleListURL&_method=list&_ArticleListID=-1227542868&_sort=r&_st=4&md5=bfbc233b44bba64cfc3f54a16d00e2d0&searchtype=a

Thats an awful lot of research out there, most of it is focused on narrow aspects the science to incrementally improve our understanding of the overall climate, which is how most research works, but it's fair to say that the vast majority of these researchers are not in agreement with the handful of contrarians, of whom many have been mentioned on this thread and of whom Bates now finds himself associated.

Gaoth Laidir

Ah, so now you've read it. Good. OK so you don't understand it. I'm not sure why you posted xml or JavaScript code. What's that for?

Would you have a link to the source of these alleged funding of the think tanks that you say are funded by the energy industry? You said HE was "employed" by a lobby group. Are you now withdrawing that statement?

I have seen the reduction in climate sensitivity from 2.8 to 2.2 degrees, which is a 0.6 reduction. Whether it's 0.2 or 0.6...or nothing at all, the original Lindzen hypothesis has not been rejected and has more recently been investigated further. It's still unknown what, if any, effect it has.

But we're back again to you discussing authors' contact lists rather than their work. You say you have read Bates paper but you have given absolutely nothing in the way of analysis, apart from some lines of code. Lindzen, Soon, Connolly et al. were not authors of that paper so why you keep dragging them up as rebuttal witnesses is beyond me. Objection, Your Honour!

You continue on with your hyperbolic claims of climate doom until AR6 comes out and I'll continue reading scientific papers as they come out. No, I will never make it through 24,000, but I have a stack of them downloaded and ready to read.

Akrasia

The original lindzen hypothesis was never proven, and it's still not proven, all these latest papers show are that it may be plausible

Regarding Bates, I remember reading somewhere that he was employed by a farming lobbying group. I can't find that reference now, so maybe I got my wires crossed on that one.

There is an excellent lecture delivered to the Royal society by Prof Tim Palmer, research professor at Oxford, that you might be interested in. He talks about climate sensitivity from about 40 minutes in and he discusses the observed sensitivity versus the modeled sensitivity, and explains why observed temperature increases lag the modeled sensitivity, because the sensitivity is temperature dependent, as temperature increases, feedbacks that aren't important early on, become more impactful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXNaNXwWvmk&t=2292s

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

The original lindzen hypothesis was never proven, and it's still not proven, all these latest papers show are that it may be plausible

Yes, plausible. That's quite different to what you were saying yesterday.

Regarding Bates, I remember reading somewhere that he was employed by a farming lobbying group. I can't find that reference now, so maybe I got my wires crossed on that one.

Ah, so you just threw that allegation out there weeks ago, but after ignoring repeated requests for evidence of it you now finally say you can't find it and maybe you were wrong. Now I see why you ignored my requests.

There is an excellent lecture delivered to the Royal society by Prof Tim Palmer, research professor at Oxford, that you might be interested in. He talks about climate sensitivity from about 40 minutes in and he discusses the observed sensitivity versus the modeled sensitivity, and explains why observed temperature increases lag the modeled sensitivity, because the sensitivity is temperature dependent, as temperature increases, feedbacks that aren't important early on, become more impactful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXNaNXwWvmk&t=2292s

And then there is the now infamous Bates paper that goes further into the subject and finds that a two-zone model may better deal with the globe as a whole when it comes to sensitivity, but you didn't understand that paper, so...

Whatever. The model warming predictions of the various RPCs show varying results by 2100. You like to always quote the very top of the RCP 8.5 range and liken it to a war refugee crisis. Others will look at it more rationally and see what's actually happening. I refer you back to this image I posted weeks ago. It shows the last couple of decades of observations compared to the RCP 4.5 of AR5. The recent observations are struggling to keep up with the bottom members of the 4.5 range. Now there's nothing to say that they won't recover, but my point is that the recent flat warming, due to solar dimming, has set the curve back a decade or two from the forecast. So come 2100, the +4.5 W/m^2 forcing of that RCP - and the corresponding warming effects - may not fully materialise because these forecasts do not allow for flattening such as we've recently seen. It may be that the 4.5 curve (and the others too) need to be revised downwards to allow for the possibility of future similar flattening periods.

Rikand

Akrasia kinda reminds me of Milhouse in this scene of the Simpsons. Hes completely unqualified to talk about what hes talking about, but he's taken advice from different places and come up with.....

Akrasia

I'll remind you that I'm the one saying we should accept the IPCC reports as the best available review of the evidence rather than focusing on one paper by one contrarian. (and it's literally just the one paper given that Gaoth Ladir accepts that Bates' previous paper on the same topic was severely flawed, but because nobody has gotten around to debunking the latest version, it must be accurate?)

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

I'll remind you that I'm the one saying we should accept the IPCC reports as the best available review of the evidence rather than focusing on one paper by one contrarian. (and it's literally just the one paper given that Gaoth Ladir accepts that Bates' previous paper on the same topic was severely flawed, but because nobody has gotten around to debunking the latest version, it must be accurate?)

Why should it be debunked? Did you find something wrong with the science or is it just because of the author? Is that really how you operate?

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Yes, plausible. That's quite different to what you were saying yesterday.

Plausible is a long way away from your position that we need to be more skeptical about the established science. A plausible effect might exist, but to demonstrate that it is a driver of climate to any significant degree takes a lot more research.

And then there is the now infamous Bates paper that goes further into the subject and finds that a two-zone model may better deal with the globe as a whole when it comes to sensitivity, but you didn't understand that paper, so...

I'm not qualified to assess the paper, unless you're a climatologist, you're not either, at least i am not pretending to have expertise that I don't have.

Whatever. The model warming predictions of the various RPCs show varying results by 2100. You like to always quote the very top of the RCP 8.5 range and liken it to a war refugee crisis. Others will look at it more rationally and see what's actually happening.

The RCP 8.5 refers to the business as usual scenario. It is not alarmist when the republican party in the US are dragging oil production back up to where were were before the crash.
And to look at whats actually happening, 2016 was the hottest year on record at over 1 degree c above pre-20th century levels.

remember, our goal is to cut the temp increases to below 1.5 degrees. 2016 is already 2/3 of the way there.

Before you say el nino caused the temp increase, el ninos have been happening all along, the difference is global warming.

I refer you back to this image I posted weeks ago. It shows the last couple of decades of observations compared to the RCP 4.5 of AR5. The recent observations are struggling to keep up with the bottom members of the 4.5 range. Now there's nothing to say that they won't recover, but my point is that the recent flat warming, due to solar dimming, has set the curve back a decade or two from the forecast. So come 2100, the +4.5 W/m^2 forcing of that RCP - and the corresponding warming effects - may not fully materialise because these forecasts do not allow for flattening such as we've recently seen. It may be that the 4.5 curve (and the others too) need to be revised downwards to allow for the possibility of future similar flattening periods.

The recent observations on that graph are 6 years old now. Stick in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and see where the trend line is going.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Why should it be debunked? Did you find something wrong with the science or is it just because of the author? Is that really how you operate?

You're the one who saw one lecture by a meteorologist and concluded that he's the only scientist who deserves to be listened to. What about the 24000 other papers published this year?

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Plausible is a long way away from your position that we need to be more skeptical about the established science. A plausible effect might exist, but to demonstrate that it is a driver of climate to any significant degree takes a lot more research.

Firstly, stop saying I'm a skeptic. I said no such thing about the established science. All I said was that this knowledge is constantly being refined and in some cases superseded. Your constant hyperbole and "skeptic" and "paid shill" name calling makes you look like one of those riculous chemtrail conspiracy theorists.

Secondly, plausible is one step. You're right, a lot more research is needed to prove it true. Research is continuing. Some said it's rubbish, more recent suggests not so. You threw it out the window in your rant on Lindzen yesterday. That, like the Bates lobby group thing, backfired on you.

I'm not qualified to assess the paper, unless you're a climatologist, you're not either, at least i am not pretending to have expertise that I don't have.

Yet you are there with links to other papers and YouTube videos that support your theory when it suits you. You have selective aptitude, it seems.

The RCP 8.5 refers to the business as usual scenario. It is not alarmist when the republican party in the US are dragging oil production back up to where were were before the crash.
And to look at whats actually happening, 2016 was the hottest year on record at over 1 degree c above pre-20th century levels.
remember, our goal is to cut the temp increases to below 1.5 degrees. 2016 is already 2/3 of the way there.

1947 was the record 60 years ago. It was almost half a degree warmer than pre industrial levels. On an underlying warming trend it's no surprise that recent years will be warmer again.

Before you say el nino caused the temp increase, el ninos have been happening all along, the difference is global warming.

If it's all the same to you I am going to say it. 2015-16 was an El Niño spike similar to that of 1997. Since 1997 there was no net warming for about 13 years due to global dimming. With the latest El Niño gone it will be interesting to see how '17 and '18 work out.

The recent observations on that graph are 6 years old now. Stick in 2014, 2015 and 2016 and see where the trend line is going.

Yep, as I said, there's nothing to say that the observations won't recover, though a strong El Niño spike in there won't buck the trend that much longer term.

Gaoth Laidir

Akrasia wrote: »

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Why should it be debunked? Did you find something wrong with the science or is it just because of the author? Is that really how you operate?

You're the one who saw one lecture by a meteorologist and concluded that he's the only scientist who deserves to be listened to. What about the 24000 other papers published this year?

Again, there you go with your lies. I never said that he's the only one to be listened to. It's pathetic how you try to gain traction by making stuff up about people. I've already said I try to read as many papers as I can and I've been to a lot more lectures than just his.

I'm done taking to you.

Akrasia

Gaoth Laidir wrote: »

Again, there you go with your lies. I never said that he's the only one to be listened to. It's pathetic how you try to gain traction by making stuff up about people. I've already said I try to read as many papers as I can and I've been to a lot more lectures than just his.

I'm done taking to you.

Get off your high horse. For the last 3 weeks you've been calling me hysterical and suggesting i get all my information from the daily express.

You have been consistently taking the skeptical position on global warming but act offended when referred to as a skeptic. You refuse to acknowledge the warning signs when Bates chooses to cite very dodgy research to support his claims.

Not all published research is equal. You call me alarmist and over the top but you think a 1 degree Celsius warming in a hundred or so years is reasonable and we shouldn't be overly concerned about it?

The overwhelming preponderance of evidence is that greenhouses gasses are warming our planet to a dangerous new state and if we don't treat it as a crisis we could well sleep walk into oblivion