Cruces Atmospheric Sciences Forum – In science, the debate is never over!
Tag: climate change
[def. dictionary.com] a long-term change in the earth’s climate, especially a change due to an increase in the average atmospheric temperature: Melting glaciers imply that life in the Arctic is affected by climate change. … Foremost among them is the role of birth control in dealing with climate change.
[added comments] The above appears to be an overly simple definition of climate change and the last sentence is open to extensive discussion. There is much more to climate change than temperature. There is wind, precipitation, humidity, atmospheric pressure, and other elements. Also, there is nothing unusual about climate change, because the climate is constantly changing. Climate is simply average weather. What that is depends on the averaging period. Some say that at least 30 years of measurements are required to compute climatic averages, but that is not necessarily correct. There are good reasons to consider 60 years of measurements due to the 60-year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). The limiting factor in computing climatological averages is the amount of measurement data available. Generally, there is no more than 100 to 150 years of data unless proxy data are used. Regardless, the climatological average will be different for each different averaging period. Consequently, we must conclude that we really do not have sufficient data to know what the climatological averages are not to mention how they are changing.
[Ed. Dr. Roy Spencer wrote a post (22 March 2018) disagreeing with Lord Monckton’s theory that climate scientists have over-estimated feedback by a factor of 2, because they have been using the feedback equations incorrectly. Dr. Spencer agrees with the factor of 2 error, but he disagrees with the reason given by Lord Monckton. In response, Lord Monckton has countered Dr. Spencer’s argument with a post of his own on Spencer’s blog. The original Spencer post can be found here with Lord Monckton’s counter argument here.]
A recent article by Lord Christopher Monckton over at WUWT argues that there has been an “elementary error of physics” that has led to climate sensitivity being overestimated by about a factor of 2.
I agree with the conclusion but not the reason why. It is already known from the work of Otto et al. (2013), Lewis & Curry (2015) and others that the climate system (including the deep oceans) has warmed by an amount that suggests a climate sensitivity only about half of what the models produce (AR5 models warm by an average of 3.4 deg. C in response to a doubling of CO2).
But the potential reasons why are many, and as far as I can tell not dependent upon Christopher’s arguments. For those who don’t know, Lord Monckton is a pretty talented mathematician. However, like others I have encountered over the years, I believe he errs in his assumptions about how the climate research community uses — and does or does not depend upon — the concept of feedback in climate modeling. Continue reading “Climate F-Words”
[Dr. Spencer’s post originally appeared on his blog on February 22nd, 2018. The link to his 2/23/18 update of the post is here.]
UPDATE(2/23/18):The previous version of this post had improper latitude bounds for the HadCRUT4 Tsfc data. I’ve rerun the results… the conclusions remain the same. I have also added proof that ENSO is accompanied by its own radiative forcing, a controversial claim, which allows it to cause multi-decadal climate change. In simple terms, this is clear evidence the climate system can cause its own, natural, internally-generated climate changes. This is partly what has caused recent warming, and the climate modelling community has assumed it was all human-caused.Continue reading “A 1D Model Of Global Temperature Changes, 1880-2017”
The year 2017 featured incredibly intense, damaging wildfires in California. First the Wine Country fires of October, and later, in December, the massive Thomas Fire, each destroyed hundreds of homes. The latter, in many of the affluent suburbs and enclaves northwest of Los Angeles and Hollywood. The Thomas Fire is the largest in modern California history with over 1000 structures destroyed.
California’s Governor Jerry Brown blamed human-caused CO2-fueled
global warming for this conflagration during a visit to Ventura County on 9 December, saying the drought conditions were the “new normal.” To quote the governor, “There have (historically) been very long droughts in California and we are getting some of those returning very bad, and we’re going to get them returning more often.”
But, Governor Brown is just wrong about this, as an examination of some meteorological and climate data shows:
[Note: This post was submitted by Bob Endlich to the Las Cruces Sun-News as an Op Ed column in response to a weekly column by Algernon D’amassa, this one saying that Hurricane Harvey was made worse by human activities. It was declined by the Sun-News editor, because he was afraid that it would generate too many responses from the alarmist camp. We believe that this is nothing more than “soft censorship” another way to describe censorship, accompanied by a nonsensical explanation. Ed.]
Algernon D’Amassa is wrong by saying Hurricane Harvey was made worse by humans, mentioning sea level rise, warmer seas, and stronger storms.
No data show that Hurricane Harvey was made stronger by the use of fossil fuels; in fact, ready availability of, and use of, fossil fuels made a dangerous storm less so, as explained below, comparing Harvey with Galveston’s 1900 Hurricane.
[This post was originally published on cfact.org on 29 July 2017 and authored by Paul Driessen. Previous to this publication, Bob Endlich gave a presentation to the CASF at our 16 August 2014 meeting on a similar subject. Mr. Driessen’s post complements Mr. Endlich’s presentation, which was entitled “21st Century Snake Oil.” ]
It’s time to really cut, cut, cut ethanol and other renewable fuel mandates – maybe to zero.
The closest thing to earthly eternal life, President Ronald Reagan used to say, is a government program.
Those who benefit from a program actively and vocally defend it, often giving millions in campaign cash to politicians who help perpetuate it, while those who oppose the program or are harmed by it are usually disorganized and distracted by daily life. Legislative inertia and Continue reading “Biofuel justifications are illusory”