There never have been wildfires here....

[longview]

It wasn't excluded. And I have proven this exact point to you before.

The wording of the IPCC SPM says otherwise, They said they were unable to arrive at a best estimate for ECS,
because of disagreement from different lines of evidence.
The reality is that means they are placing model output, on the same evidence levels as observations, unscientific at best!

 

[Buzz]

The wording of the IPCC SPM says otherwise,

The Summary for policymakers is abreviated and doesn't contain all the evidence. But Otto was included in the the main IPCC report.

They said they were unable to arrive at a best estimate for ECS,
because of disagreement from different lines of evidence.
The reality is that means they are placing model output, on the same evidence levels as observations, unscientific at best!

Nothing unscientific about it. What is unscientific is using only observational data as if all the feedbacks are going to always stay the same.

 

[longview]

The Summary for policymakers is abreviated and doesn't contain all the evidence. But Otto was included in the the main IPCC report.
Nothing unscientific about it. What is unscientific is using only observational data as if all the feedbacks are going to always stay the same.

The observational data contains ALL of the feedbacks to that point!
The further we get away from the warming perturbation, the higher percentage of the feedbacks are present.
We have been over this, estimates of latency are as short at 10.6 years, to as long as several centuries.
Hansen said about 40% would be realized in the first 5 years.
In reality, we do not even know the sign of the net effect of all of the feedbacks.

 

[Buzz]

The observational data contains ALL of the feedbacks to that point!
The further we get away from the warming perturbation, the higher percentage of the feedbacks are present.
We have been over this, estimates of latency are as short at 10.6 years, to as long as several centuries.
Hansen said about 40% would be realized in the first 5 years.

How can the observational data contain all the feedbacks when some of the equaliztion may take centuries to be fully realized? It can't.

In reality, we do not even know the sign of the net effect of all of the feedbacks.

Oh please... the chances of there actually being enough negative feedbacks to cause cooling while mankind keeps pumping CO2 in the atmosphere is so tiny that it is better described as another one of your climate fantasies.

 

[bluesmoke]

Only in your mind, The IPCC report, is a report issued by the UN designed to keep the alarms about climate change ringing,
it only represents what the editor's of the report allow through.
Here is an example from AR5 concerning a best estimate of ECS.
AR5 SPM
"No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies."
When in reality the scientist working on the report did report a best estimate of ECS, which they published as a Nature article.
otto
"The most likely value of equilibrium climate sensitivity based on the energy budget of the most recent decade is 2.0 °C "
But they could not have the lead authors of the last IPCC report, reporting that the ECS from doubling the CO2 level would only be 2.0 °C,
So they made one of the most unscientific statements ever, that the model results disagreed with the observation's, and so no agreement could be found.
In science, if the model disagrees with the observation, the model is wrong!

You keep throwing the same crap against the wall that is of singular view and does not represent the consensus view of the scientist community represented in the IPCC reports. Until you can say that what you parse from the report so disingenuously as to pretend it is of IPCC consensus is actually of consensus, you have no scientific support of significance for what you think you know and falsely state as though it refutes the IPCC position on AGW. You're not a forthright, honest debater. See you on another thread.

 

[longview]

You keep throwing the same crap against the wall that is of singular view and does not represent the consensus view of the scientist community represented in the IPCC reports. Until you can say that what you parse from the report so disingenuously as to pretend it is of IPCC consensus is actually of consensus, you have no scientific support of significance for what you think you know and falsely state as though it refutes the IPCC position on AGW. You're not a forthright, honest debater. See you on another thread.

You seem to imagine the scientific consensus on AGW is something that it is not, and then attempt to extend that consensus to the IPCC report.
The IPCC exists to find alarmist amounts of predicted warming, should we be surprised when they ignore the research of their own lead authors,
and find, " Alarming amounts of predicted warming"?
Mind you, all the excess warming is still predicted, as there is no amplified feedback warming yet in the observed temperature records!
There is a scientific consensus that A) Global temperatures have increased over the last century,
and B) That Human activity is likely involved!
The consensus does not include a type of Human activity, or a quantitative attribution of the Human involvement.

 

[Dittohead not!]

You seem to imagine the scientific consensus on AGW is something that it is not, and then attempt to extend that consensus to the IPCC report.
The IPCC exists to find alarmist amounts of predicted warming, should we be surprised when they ignore the research of their own lead authors,
and find, " Alarming amounts of predicted warming"?
Mind you, all the excess warming is still predicted, as there is no amplified feedback warming yet in the observed temperature records!
There is a scientific consensus that A) Global temperatures have increased over the last century,
and B) That Human activity is likely involved!
The consensus does not include a type of Human activity, or a quantitative attribution of the Human involvement.

"
There is a scientific consensus that A) Global temperatures have increased over the last century,
and B) That Human activity is likely involved!"

That pretty much sums it up, except for that all important word "average." The average temperature of the Earth has increased. This is not a nice even warming with every part of the Earth simply a couple of degrees warmer than it was 50 years ago. It is more than that.

And the type of human activity is pretty obvious, isn't it? What human activity has warmed the planet and how?

 

[longview]

"
There is a scientific consensus that A) Global temperatures have increased over the last century,
and B) That Human activity is likely involved!"

That pretty much sums it up, except for that all important word "average." The average temperature of the Earth has increased. This is not a nice even warming with every part of the Earth simply a couple of degrees warmer than it was 50 years ago. It is more than that.

And the type of human activity is pretty obvious, isn't it? What human activity has warmed the planet and how?

If you think the Human activity is so obvious, Perhaps you should itemize your list?
To me it looks like land use, and aerosol clearing, could play as large a role as greenhouse gasses, in the approximately
1.1 C of observed warming over the last century, and the 1.1C is only because the aerosol changes distorted the Northern Hemisphere record.
For the more pristine Southern Hemisphere, the warming since 1900 is a mild .74C.

 

[Dittohead not!]

If you think the Human activity is so obvious, Perhaps you should itemize your list?
To me it looks like land use, and aerosol clearing, could play as large a role as greenhouse gasses, in the approximately
1.1 C of observed warming over the last century, and the 1.1C is only because the aerosol changes distorted the Northern Hemisphere record.
For the more pristine Southern Hemisphere, the warming since 1900 is a mild .74C.

Land use no doubt has had some impact.
I have no idea what you mean by "aerosol clearing."
The Earth has not warmed uniformly. That the southern hemisphere has warmed less than the northern is not surprising, nor does it mean that the south is more "pristine."

 

[longview]

Land use no doubt has had some impact.
I have no idea what you mean by "aerosol clearing."
The Earth has not warmed uniformly. That the southern hemisphere has warmed less than the northern is not surprising, nor does it mean that the south is more "pristine."

In the Northern Hemisphere, Human emission of aerosols caused substantial dimming of the available sunlight reaching the ground between 1950 and the mid 1980's.
After that the regulations enacted in the 1970's cleared the skies to the point that brightening occurred.
dimming and brightening
The difference is that while CO2 and CH4 are well mixed greenhouse gasses, the aerosols are not, so the effects were localized to the Northern Hemisphere.
The dimming and brightening distorted the greenhouse gas warming, as the brightening happened during the time window that we were looking for
the effects of added Greenhouse gasses.
A more accurate picture of the effects of greenhouse gasses, would be the Southern Hemisphere, that did not see most of the aerosol disruption.

 

[Dittohead not!]

In the Northern Hemisphere, Human emission of aerosols caused substantial dimming of the available sunlight reaching the ground between 1950 and the mid 1980's.
After that the regulations enacted in the 1970's cleared the skies to the point that brightening occurred.
dimming and brightening
The difference is that while CO2 and CH4 are well mixed greenhouse gasses, the aerosols are not, so the effects were localized to the Northern Hemisphere.
The dimming and brightening distorted the greenhouse gas warming, as the brightening happened during the time window that we were looking for
the effects of added Greenhouse gasses.
A more accurate picture of the effects of greenhouse gasses, would be the Southern Hemisphere, that did not see most of the aerosol disruption.

An aerosol is a fine mist, like a cloud or fog. That does limit the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. Now, regulations enacted in the '70s? Cars were regulated so as not to emit as much oxide of nitrogen, something that really threw a curve ball at the auto industry in '73 to '75, before the invention of the catalytic converter in '76. I'm not sure oxides of nitrogen are really aerosols, though. What aerosols are you talking about?

 

[longview]

An aerosol is a fine mist, like a cloud or fog. That does limit the amount of sunlight reaching the surface. Now, regulations enacted in the '70s? Cars were regulated so as not to emit as much oxide of nitrogen, something that really threw a curve ball at the auto industry in '73 to '75, before the invention of the catalytic converter in '76. I'm not sure oxides of nitrogen are really aerosols, though. What aerosols are you talking about?

I think aerosols like those referenced in Wild et al 2019
wild 2019
Cover all type of aerosols, basically any type of fine particles suspended in the air.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I think aerosols like those referenced in Wild et al 2019
wild 2019
Cover all type of aerosols, basically any type of fine particles suspended in the air.

I got:

Your session has timed out. Please go back to the article page and click the PDF link again.

but it sounds as if your article is including dust and smoke particles as "aerosols" as well.

When a volcano goes off, it puts a lot of small particles in the air and results in a local, or sometimes widespread, cooling that goes away as soon as the particles are out of the air.

We saw the same thing in California due to this summer's wildfires: Smoke in the air did bring temperatures down noticeably.

But still, the long term warming is due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, is it not?

 

[longview]

I got:



but it sounds as if your article is including dust and smoke particles as "aerosols" as well.

When a volcano goes off, it puts a lot of small particles in the air and results in a local, or sometimes widespread, cooling that goes away as soon as the particles are out of the air.

We saw the same thing in California due to this summer's wildfires: Smoke in the air did bring temperatures down noticeably.

But still, the long term warming is due to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, is it not?

We cannot know the attribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, without removing the other signals.
If the models are based on observed global warming from 1978 to 1998, then the signal was corrupted by the reducing aerosol effects in the Northern Hemisphere.
Similar trends can be observed in the GISS data set, with much greater warming between 1985 and 2000 in the NH vs SH.
The Southern Hemisphere had the same levels of greenhouse gasses, so should have a better representation of the warming from added greenhouse gases.

 

[Dittohead not!]

We cannot know the attribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses, without removing the other signals.
If the models are based on observed global warming from 1978 to 1998, then the signal was corrupted by the reducing aerosol effects in the Northern Hemisphere.
Similar trends can be observed in the GISS data set, with much greater warming between 1985 and 2000 in the NH vs SH.
The Southern Hemisphere had the same levels of greenhouse gasses, so should have a better representation of the warming from added greenhouse gases.
View attachment 67304041

OK, I see. The particulates that were in the atmosphere during the "dimming phase" were less prevalent during the "brightening phase," and that explains some of the global warming. Since there were fewer particulates in the southern hemisphere to begin with, the warming in that part of the world better represents the increase in temperatures due to increases in greenhouse gasses.
So, if that's true, then why not go back before the "dimming phase," and compare temperatures from that era to the modern day? Wouldn't that determine how much warming is due to cleaner air and how much to greenhouse gasses?

 

[longview]

OK, I see. The particulates that were in the atmosphere during the "dimming phase" were less prevalent during the "brightening phase," and that explains some of the global warming. Since there were fewer particulates in the southern hemisphere to begin with, the warming in that part of the world better represents the increase in temperatures due to increases in greenhouse gasses.
So, if that's true, then why not go back before the "dimming phase," and compare temperatures from that era to the modern day? Wouldn't that determine how much warming is due to cleaner air and how much to greenhouse gasses?

That would be a method, but I do not think they know with certainty when the dimming began, only that by the mid 1940's the
dimming exceeded the warming. It would be like introducing an unknown variable, knowing that it has to later be removed.
Think of it like adding random pieces to a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle, they do not fit anywhere, but have to be eliminated!
I think the cleaner approach is to evaluate the observed warming without aerosol signal.

 

[bluesmoke]

The cooling effect of human caused aerosols prevented greater warming from CO2 as would otherwise have been. As aerosol was removed from the atmosphere, AGW went on unimpeded with no less CO2 than before.

 

[longview]

The cooling effect of human caused aerosols prevented greater warming from CO2 as would otherwise have been. As aerosol was removed from the atmosphere, AGW went on unimpeded with no less CO2 than before.

But the dimming and later brightening of the atmosphere in the Northern Hemisphere corrupted the global temperature numbers.
To properly evaluate the effects of the added greenhouse gasses alone, we need to evaluate the Southern Hemisphere which had a much lessor aerosol effect.

 

[bluesmoke]

But the dimming and later brightening of the atmosphere in the Northern Hemisphere corrupted the global temperature numbers.
To properly evaluate the effects of the added greenhouse gasses alone, we need to evaluate the Southern Hemisphere which had a much lessor aerosol effect.

.....

 

[Jack Hays]

Charting a future course:

Wildfires
Preventing future forest infernos
The 2020 fire season is nearing its end. But monstrous wildfires continue to rage across America’s western states, devastating towns and habitats, and killing hundreds of people and millions of animals. Politicians and environmentalists continue to rage that climate change is the primary factor, allowing few responsible, commonsense forest management actions that could actually reduce the risks.

 

[Jack Hays]

An Important Finding about the September Labor Day Wildfires
Just extraordinary. The winds at that time were THE STRONGEST EVER OBSERVED at the site during those months for any wind direction from the north, east, southeast, or northwest.
Continue reading →

 

[Dittohead not!]

An Important Finding about the September Labor Day Wildfires
Just extraordinary. The winds at that time were THE STRONGEST EVER OBSERVED at the site during those months for any wind direction from the north, east, southeast, or northwest.
Continue reading →

If the Heartland Institute is not paying you to spread the misinformation found in Watts Up With That, then you're missing out. You should be cashing in.

 

[Jack Hays]

If the Heartland Institute is not paying you to spread the misinformation found in Watts Up With That, then you're missing out. You should be cashing in.

And yet:

". . . Currently, I have a research grant from the National Science Foundation, and smaller grants with the USDA Forest Service and WA DNR, to work on wildfire/weather issues. Recently, our group has completed three papers on the intersection of weather/climate with wildfires: on the Wine Country Fires of 2017, the Camp Fire of 2019, and Diablo downslope winds of northern CA. . . ."

An Important Finding about the September Labor Day Wildfires

 

[Dittohead not!]

And yet:

". . . Currently, I have a research grant from the National Science Foundation, and smaller grants with the USDA Forest Service and WA DNR, to work on wildfire/weather issues. Recently, our group has completed three papers on the intersection of weather/climate with wildfires: on the Wine Country Fires of 2017, the Camp Fire of 2019, and Diablo downslope winds of northern CA. . . ."

An Important Finding about the September Labor Day Wildfires

how interesting that a specialist in Pharmacokinetics and Drug Metabolism would get a research grant to study weather issues.

Well, I suppose research is research, and he should know how to conduct that.

What did he find?

Just extraordinary. The winds at that time were THE STRONGEST EVER OBSERVED at the site during those months for any wind direction from the north, east, southeast, or northwest. The stronger the winds the greater the potential for rapid fire growth, and the greater the potential for fire ignition by failing electrical infrastructure and other causes.Importantly, these were the strongest winds by far from the east and thus downslope on the western slopes of the Oregon Cascades. Downslope winds from the east are inevitably very dry and the air progressively became drier the longer they blow from that direction.

Extremes of weather. What's up with that?

 

[Jack Hays]

how interesting that a specialist in Pharmacokinetics and Drug Metabolism would get a research grant to study weather issues.

Well, I suppose research is research, and he should know how to conduct that.

What did he find?



Extremes of weather. What's up with that?

I think you took a wrong turn. The research is right in his wheelhouse.
Cliff Mass - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Cliff_Mass

Clifford F. "Cliff" Mass is an American professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Washington. His research focuses on numerical weather modeling ...