Why People Hate Jews
The data shows this is a generational event. The future is not mentioned, and to extrapolate emissions based on past growth is not a good way to predict a scenario. Yes, there are different versions and the interpretations of what is going on with this planet.
A Light unto Nations: to Show the Way to Unity to the Whole World
This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. December Learn how and when to remove this template message. Eurozone crisis and Greek government-debt crisis.
Eurozone , International status and usage of the euro , and Enlargement of the eurozone. International status and usage of the euro. External adopters of the euro. Currencies pegged to the euro. Currencies pegged to the euro within narrow band.
External adopters of the US dollar. Currencies pegged to the US dollar. Currencies pegged to the US dollar within narrow band. Euro exchange rate against U. Linguistic issues concerning the euro. Euro portal Money portal European Union portal Numismatics portal. The Caribbean Netherlands introduced the United States dollar in Official Journal of the European Union.
Retrieved 30 May Retrieved 17 July Archived from the original on 7 June Total EUR currency coins and banknotes in circulation Archived from the original PDF on 22 February Retrieved 13 December Federal Reserve Statistical Release.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Retrieved 1 April Archived from the original on 15 January Retrieved 29 May Retrieved 8 September Retrieved 2 January Bank for International Settlements. Retrieved 7 February Retrieved 25 July Retrieved 27 December Retrieved 8 December Retrieved 28 August Retrieved 14 February Retrieved 5 March Retrieved 29 January The European Central Bank: History, Role and Functions pdf 2nd ed.
Retrieved 18 December The adjustment is done on the basis of data provided by the European Commission. Retrieved 7 April Retrieved 26 November Archived from the original PDF on 5 December Retrieved 16 November Rules for expressing monetary units". Archived from the original on 6 March Retrieved 17 December Central Bank of Ireland. Retrieved 26 January The introduction of euro banknotes and coins one year after COM ".
Retrieved 26 December Archived from the original on 1 December Archived from the original on 21 January Retrieved 25 October Archived from the original on 11 October From Logo to Letter".
Retrieved 10 January Retrieved 6 August Archived from the original on 30 June Retrieved 21 May Retrieved 28 April Retrieved 22 June Retrieved 1 October Can the euro zone survive its debt crisis? Retrieved 1 December Retrieved 24 July A Critical Review of Sterp".
Retrieved 30 April Retrieved 8 July Archived from the original PDF on 25 August Retrieved 17 September Retrieved 8 November Straw says eurozone 'will collapse ' ". Triennial Central Bank Survey. Retrieved 22 March Risk aversion in the Eurozone , Research in Economics , vol. Evidence from the European Car Market". Journal of International Economics. The History of the Bundesbank: Lessons for the European Central Bank.
The Euro and European Labour Markets". Journal of Public Policy. Retrieved 19 December Retrieved 2 October Archived from the original PDF on 24 July Review of International Economics. Review of World Economics. Retrieved 13 July Is there a Positive Effect?
Archived from the original PDF on 3 September The trade effect of the euro in historical perspective". Journal of International Money and Finance. Archived from the original PDF on 31 August Archived from the original PDF on 6 July International Journal of Central Banking. Retrieved 23 August Journal of Money, Credit and Banking.
Retrieved 12 November Quarterly Journal of Economics. Journal of Empirical Finance. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. Lane 22 August The origins of the euro crisis". Retrieved 16 September Archived from the original on 17 March Retrieved 13 March Evidence from micro data" PDF. Archived from the original PDF on 19 July Retrieved 28 December Retrieved 28 March Retrieved 29 December The euro is the single currency of the member states that have adopted it.
To make this singleness apparent, Community law requires a single spelling of the word euro in the nominative singular case in all community and national legislative provisions, taking into account the existence of different alphabets.
Retrieved 12 January English Style Guide section Like 'pound', 'dollar' or any other currency name in English, the word 'euro' is written in lower case with no initial capital and, where appropriate, takes the plural 's' as does 'cent'. Euro at Wikipedia's sister projects. Proposed eurobonds Reserve currency Petroeuro World currency. Andorra Monaco San Marino Vatican.
British pound sterling incl. Euro portal European Union portal Numismatics portal. Links to related articles. Pre —57 —72 —93 — Since Eurosphere Intergovernmentalism Multi-speed Neofunctionalism Optimum currency area Supranational union.
Armenian dram Azerbaijani manat Belarusian ruble Georgian lari Moldovan leu Kazakhstani tenge Russian ruble Transnistrian ruble unrecognised Ukrainian hryvnia. Albanian lek Bosnian convertible mark Macedonian denar Maltese scudo unrecognised Serbian dinar Turkish lira. Comorian franc Djiboutian franc Eritrean nakfa Ethiopian birr Kenyan shilling Seychellois rupee Somali shilling Somaliland shilling unrecognized South Sudanese pound Tanzanian shilling Ugandan shilling.
Cents Zimbabwean bond notes since 28 November - denominated in U. Currencies of the Americas. Currencies of post-Soviet states. Chechen naxar unrecognized Estonian kroon Georgian kupon lari Latvian rublis Latvian lats Lithuanian litas Lithuanian talonas Moldovan cupon Soviet ruble Tajikistani ruble Ukrainian karbovanets. Recipients of the Charlemagne Prize. Retrieved from " https: Articles containing potentially dated statements from April All articles containing potentially dated statements CS1 Dutch-language sources nl Webarchive template wayback links CS1 maint: Date format CS1 German-language sources de Use British English from March Use dmy dates from March All articles with dead external links Articles with dead external links from July Articles with permanently dead external links Articles containing potentially dated statements from Articles containing potentially dated statements from All articles with unsourced statements Articles with unsourced statements from January Articles containing potentially dated statements from August All accuracy disputes Articles with disputed statements from February Articles with unsourced statements from February Articles needing additional references from December All articles needing additional references Articles containing potentially dated statements from Wikipedia articles with GND identifiers Wikipedia articles with HDS identifiers Wikipedia articles with LCCN identifiers Wikipedia articles with NDL identifiers Good articles.
At some amount beyond that, the net benefit might phase into net detriment. But those that have fallen in love with the solution rather than the problem are ready to declare catastrophe to suit their agendas. If you worked this out for yourself, go check you calculations you are wrong. If you read it on a blog somewhere, change your choice of blogs. Either we get to ppm within a century which is not a good thing, or easily obtained fossil fuels run out by , also not a good thing.
The one solution for both is a wholesale fossil energy source replacement as soon as possible, and definitely by Harry, I thought the kinetic energy in the atmosphere increased from summer to winter, but that was before climate science came along. It [increased mean temperature] also means less violent storms because of reduced kinetic energy. Not really sure what your point is. When it is winter in one place, it is summer elsewhere. The models predict warming, and warming is what is being observed.
The model nit-pickers ignore that simple fact. Sea-level rise and fall multiple times in just the last , years. And an entire 50, year old bald cypress forest discovered 15 miles out in the Gulf south of Gulf Shores, AL. Such a waste of money and time that would be better spent developing plans and policies to minimize loss of life and property adaptation for the many Miami, Houston, etc episodes to come.
The earth does receive about the same amount of energy from the sun year to year. But that is not what the issue is, the issue is how warm does it get on the surface and lower atmosphere.
Green house gases change the distribution of the heat. It is not a coin-toss. The climate models predict a trend of rising temperatures at the surface and lower atmosphere with rising green house gases, and this is exactly what is happening. But fluctuations are not a trend.
Also, if you claim a hundred years of natural warming, you might want to tell us what you think is causing the natural warming. There is plenty of evidence that rising greenhouse gases do indeed change the climate. A change requires a forcing. The rational thing to do is keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere so all the frozen wasteland becomes productive farm land. Most commentators will persist in conflating CO2 with contamination, pollution, and garbage. Nice spin job, harry, you misconstrued everything i said.
As well you misquoted me. Natural warming was caused by ice extent decrease since the little ice age. The warming paused because overall ice extent decrease paused. Pope is describing a feedback loop that results in an oscillation over many decades. The feedback is change in albedo. When the ocean is warming it evaporates faster and that causes more snow to fall. As more snow falls albedo increases as it accumulates causing the ocean to cool.
As the ocean cools less snow falls and albedo starts dropping causing the ocean to begin warming again. There is a decades long cycle to snow advancing and retreating. No external change in forcing required to keep it going.
That is because the past warming records are actually real data. When time passes and current warming forecasts are recorded as real data, it will be well inside the bounds of past warming. Your wording is bad. The problem is that the error is consistent, and large enough that the forecasts scenarios, predictions, expectations, etc are undependable for formulating public policy. For the big picture, look at the Pacific Gyre, thousands of square kilometers circulating slowly in the Pacific Ocean, much of it debris from those confounded, unnecessary personal water bottles.
Read my post more carefully. If it can be interpreted that way, I apologize. This is a perturbed physics ensemble. All of thousands of solutions of the model — are first of all constrained to proximity to observed surface temps over a training period. To create the IPCC ensemble — modelers pick a solution from many feasible and this is graphed with arbitrarily chosen solutions from other models. So how is the one solution chosen by modelers? This perspective extends to the component discrete algorithms, parameterizations, and coupling breadth: There are better or worse choices some seemingly satisfactory for their purpose or others needing repair but not correct or best ones.
The bases for judging are a priori formulation, representing the relevant natural processes and choosing the discrete algorithms, and a posteriori solution behavior. The exam CMIP5 may give a clue about which models were selected: The greenhouse gas emissions and concentrations in this scenario increase considerably over time, leading to a radiative forcing of 8. While many scenario assumptions and results of the RCP8. In addition, we summarize main methodological improvements and extensions that were necessary to make the RCP8.
That is not exactly a blind test, the expected answer was pretty much known upfront. Representative concentration pathway 8.
The models are developed by different modelling teams around the world and because national pride is involved there is no real sign that survival of the fittest applies. All the models use the same standard rcps. By the following paper, both RCP 8. The implications of fossil fuel supply constraints on climate change projections: This paper, by contrast, takes a supply-side view of CO2 emission, and generates two supply-driven emission scenarios based on a comprehensive investigation of likely long-term pathways of fossil fuel production drawn from peer-reviewed literature published since The potential rapid increases in the supply of the non-conventional fossil fuels are also investigated.
Climate projections calculated in this paper indicate that the future atmospheric CO2 concentration will not exceed ppm in this century; and that the increase in global surface temperature will be lower than 2. Figure 2 and figure 4 in the linked paper indicate that both RCP8. Watts Up With That? So what the models are or not doing amounts to nothing but noise because all the pillars AGW is based on have not come to be.
It can be shown that it is given solar activity tied into oceanic temperatures which govern the global temperatures. Not to mention the likelihood of an increasing albedo during very low solar periods of time due to an increase in clouds, snow cover and major volcanic activity. I have said year is the year things change, because it is the first year which my two qualifiers have come into play for solar to have a cooling effect upon the climate.
The data and climatic history does not support AGW. I will send a graph which shows what correlates and will continue to correlate to global temperatures. If one is following overall global temperatures the trend over the last few months has been down and without the aid of favorable oceanic temperatures kiss AGW goodbye. It is the ocean cooling effect tied into solar activity which gives you a given global temperature. CO2 has nothing to do with it. We will know much more starting now and going forward but I am confident this correlation will hold up going forward.
In my previous post I meant to say the overall sea surface temperature trend has been down for the last few months. The answer is yes, for many years. I have been calling for the modeling system to be shut down because scientific prediction method that gives wrong answers consistently is clearly wrong science. But no, they keep using wrong predictions to justify billions spent on Kyoto, Copenhagen, Paris and others.
This perverse insistence upon wrong methods makes climate science into nothing more than a pseudo-science. We have small amounts of simple data from thousands of ARGO floats down to meters, but the average depth of all the oceans approaches meters. So what is the real CO2 contribution here and is there a measureable heat contribution also over long time scales that would promote release into the atmosphere?
If not, then the models are more broken than anyone suspects. The oceans are not releasing CO2, they are absorbing it. CO2 from submarine volcanoes gets dissolved and transformed. So there is no CO2 in the ocean and the notion that there is 60 times more CO2 in the ocean than the atmosphere is false.
The ocean eats and transforms CO2 just as it ate the model predicted elevated warming over the past 20 years. The ocean can distinguish between CO2 that falls out of the atmosphere and that belched from a submarine volcano or vent. Sounds plausible to me. That shoots holes in my notion that transfer might actually happen and be quite different from one region to another. Guess I should run along and pick up some salad dressing to pour over my green leafy CO2 pollution.
Being a net sink means more CO2 enters the oceans than leaves them, and more CO2 is made into bicarbonates than the opposite. During warming periods usually the oceans release CO2.
This is a special warming period, because the oceans are taking CO2 instead of releasing it. The reason is partial pressure difference dominates over temperature-driven gas solubility changes. After all the oceans are warming very little. Thanks for the response.
Javier, even if aco2 was entirely absorbed by carbon sinks and the entire rise was natural , then nature would still be a net sink for carbon. Thus, the observation that nature or the ocean for that matter is a net sink for carbon tells us nothing about attribution….
There is a report somewhere in this monstrous and mostly pointless file to the effect that Mount Pinatubo, in four days, emitted more CO2 than all of humankind for all the time we humans have been here.
Similarly with that volcano in Iceland that stopped all passenger jets for several days. There are hundreds of volcanos on earth, most far under water.
Then there is the Great Atlantic Rift ……. We humans are a pimple on the pimple of CO2 generation. A point, that someone may have already made apologies if so is that the Millar et al. Normally we represent climate sensitivity as a relationship between temperature changes and changes in forcing, not temperature changes and changes in total emission. This, however, does not mean that climate models are warming too much relative to the change in forcing.
I demand the full amount of warming that my emissions deserve. The whole thing has been built over shaky assumptions, and then the assumptions assumed to be facts. We have seen this process many times since Malthus. Population bomb, limits to growth, acid rain, ozone hole, global warming. All built over assumptions that turn out to be incorrect.
And we even see the same people moving from one false scare to the next. Except when you claim that Haigh supports your position when she explicitly rejects it, of course. What I care about is the data and the evidence presented. If the scientist works well, the data is correct forever.
It can always be interpreted to support a new hypothesis hopefully more correct. I care a lot about the evidence she is uncovering and showing in her articles. As every scientist, she will be proven right on some things and wrong on others. Just sticking to the evidence as much as I can. Challenge the law constantly by obeying the adage: Skepticism is the soul of science. If anyone else wants to — be my guest.
The first question such a brave person must ask is: I am no longer even sure what the question is. Anyway name-dropping and quote-mining is not a scientific argument, it is a rhetorical argument ie value to science zero.
No, Einstein did not say those precise words. In more precise words, if memory serves me, he said:. Now, if you wish to pick out one verb or one comma or one question mark that is not precisely what he said, be my guest.
Or, in this day of fake news and truthiness, deny the whole thing. Neither you nor I can personally verify anything. And I want to help you. Perhaps I should make a modification of my too- oft repeated question: There simply cannot be any right answer — only preferred answers. It makes no physical sense to calculate trends across the millennial temperature peak and inflection point at See Fig 4 from http: RSS trends showing the millennial cycle temperature peak at about The RSS cooling trend in Fig.
By the end of August , the strong El Nino temperature anomaly had declined rapidly. The cooling trend is likely to be fully restored by the end of Forecasts and trend calculations which ignore this turning point are clearly useless see Fig.
Akasofu forecasts a further temperature increase to to be 0. This is illustrated by the green curve in Fig. Indeed, it could be said that his view of the atmosphere and subsequently also the oceans as a chaotic system has coloured our thinking of the predictability of weather and subsequently climate from thereon.
Lorenz was able to show that even for a simple set of nonlinear equations 1. Here is what it comes down to which is will the oceanic temperatures fall as we move forward and will there be a slight uptick in albedo? I say solar and if this is correct then oceanic temperatures should continue to fall while the albedo increases and there goes AGW. I will send the most recent data on oceanic temperatures and if one is for cooling the past three months look quite promising. The above illustration is completely self-contained.
That pattern is reflected into the — timeframe, but with adjustments to account for an apparent small increase in the historical general upward rise in GMT which occurred between and Scenario 3 should be considered as the bottom floor of the three scenarios; and it is the one I suspect is most likely to occur. SorF, as long as GMT as tracked by HadCRUT4 and its eventual successors continues to rise in a statistically significant way, however slowly it may be rising, then my illustration contains an element of truth.
Along about or so, enough time will have passed so that we can then make a proper assessment as to just how much truth my illustration does actually contain, if any. In other words atmospheric CO2 is a valuable resource for future manufacturing and we want plenty of it. Atmospheric CO2 is a valuable resource for growth of green things and making better use of water and we want plenty of it.
Beta Blocker See Page, another thirty to fifty years worth of empirical data must be collected before any predictions made here in the year concerning where GMT might be headed over the next hundred years can be confirmed or refuted.
As long as the year running trend line shows any statistically significant warming at all, regardless of how small that upward trend might be, climate change will continue to be pushed as a major public policy issue by the progressive left. Sooner or later, another progressive liberal will be elected president. As long as the year running trend line shows any statistically significant warming at all, regardless of how small that upward trend might be. It does help that the year running trend for surface temperatures is quite close to that predicted by the models, both simple and complex.
Right in the 0. Or when the Spruce Goose pretty much flew. This is the trend line of the year temperature. The trend in the 38 years of sat records are RSS 0. Taking the greatest trend making it per decade 0. So your statement that the trend is 1. The correct statement is that the observed trend is 1. I have been attempting to generate interest among those authors whose papers show an interest and innovation in analyzing these temperature series in an analysis I have been doing.
I have been most recently interested in the global mean surface temperature series GMST and attempts to decompose those series into a secular trend, cyclical and noise red and white components. The Karl authors brought up the use of EMD for a future paper as a sequel to their original Karl paper. I was more familiar with SSA, but I noted after doing a quick survey of the literature on EMD that the Karl authors were using the combined trend and most significant cycle component as the trend without acknowledging the separation of these components by EMD.
That is where the exchanges between the Karl authors and me stopped. I used the combined SST for ocean and SAT for land temperatures for observed and modeled GMST so that I would avoid the apples to oranges comparisons that are sometimes seen in the literature where the observed ocean temperatures SST are used in a comparison with models where the ocean SAT or tas and not tos are used.
I initially had some consternation about the SSA method not readily separating any cyclical components until I began looking at simulated series where I combined known trend, cyclical and noise series and found that the heuristics of the SSA method could not make a clear separation of cyclical components that would be expected from a GMST series — whereas EMD could.
I have read other related articles on the use of EEMD and CEEMD in decomposing time series and the use of plots of log variance versus log period for the series components and with the confidence intervals for the series noise to determine the significant components.
I am of the view that the recent global warming is caused partly by anthropogenic and partly by natural effects and that the big question going forward is the relative portions from these two sources. Estimations of the sensitivity of temperature to radiative forcings, and particularly anthropogenic sourced green house gases, from observations and for determining the validity of climate model output depend critically on estimating these portions.
Making no claims of originality, novelty or propriety for my work I have put it out to innovative authors noted above with hopes of getting the climate science community interested in looking further into this approach and its application to temperature series. Hausfather and Cowtan were among those from whom I solicited a response on my work. Thus far the I have received no responses from any of those authors I solicited.
The most successful decompositions involve a fit to temperature changes expected from an exponentially growing anthropogenic CO2 component. Here is one from Vaughan Pratt. The advantage of Ensemble Empirical Mode Decomposition EEMD is that no assumptions for parameters need to be made a prior — it is an empirical method as the name implies.
The periods of the model and the observed are not necessarily the same but have the same effect of reducing the trends that might otherwise be attributed to a secular trend caused by GHGs in the critical time period.
I have had one poster speculate that the climate modelers require the presence of these cycles in order to match the observed series in the historical period.
Cyclic behavior is a poor approximation to exponential behavior. There is exponential forcing in the last century or so, so it has to be included. It has also been poorly approximated as a linear secular trend, for example in the AMO definition on woodfortrees, and in some papers who do linear detrending when trying to analyze long-term cycles without the background trend.
Jim D, do you have a good understanding of how the method EEMD decomposes a series into periodically reoccurring, trend and noise components -and further how the results can be used to determine statistical significance? Do you know what the separated components look like? No, but have you tried applying that method to a simple exponential function to see what it gives? I think it is not fit for purpose. The quantitative definition and predictions presented in this paper are based on an intrinsic MDV decomposed by EEMD, getting rid of interference from the secular trend and high-frequency variability to show clear physical meaning.
Using an ensemble of data, this definition reduces the effects of a particular dataset and also avoids arbitrary starting and ending points or a time span, making it more reliable. An ensemble of data can be generated by combination of various data from the same or different sources. However, sometimes there is only one time series.
In this case, a useful method to produce ensemble results using a single sequence is available in Huang et al. I have tested EEMD using many different simulations with various known reoccurring periodic, trend and noise components with good results.
An exponential function, in and by itself, in a series would be decomposed as a trend. A series with a high level of autocorrelation can show as a reoccurring periodic component but not as part of the trend — and it is, of course, the trend that is the critical component to cleanly separate in these series.
It has been an increasing trend for a century, and unless you have a suitable function, you would be deceiving yourself. Willard, from that article you linked above which I have previously read the author states in the conclusions what my initial post here on this topic is asking, i.
As the trend has been steady since the early twentieth century, the MDV becomes a strong predictor for climate multidecadal change and it deserves more attention. When Cyclic behavior appears in all of the past fifty million years you can be sure it will appear in future behavior.
Could be Jupiter and Saturn. Just like any tool, it has limitations. Such physical systems are often not static or periodic in spatial or temporal domains but rather evolve with different levels of spatio-temporal coherence on different timescales. In climate science, currently there exist some matrix-based eigenvalue—eigenfunction calculation methods to deal with spatio-temporally coherent structures, such as EOF analysis, which in many other fields is called PCA, and principal oscillation pattern analysis.
In these methods, spatial structures and temporal evolutions are assumed separable and the spatial structures remain unchanged throughout the climate system evolution. However, the high sensitivity of the results obtained using these methods to both spatial and temporal domains cast shadows on the validity of this assumption. Indeed, such methods often meet difficulties in interpreting physical meanings of the results.
Willard, you make two points that are obvious and often stated in papers on these subjects but should be repeated and those being 1 the theoretical basis and physical meanings for periodically occurring components of climate model and observed GMST series have been subject to speculation but not hard proofs and 2 the EEMD analysis is limited to temporal series.
I do not think either of these points detracts from these analyses results from EEMD or the thoughts that more work by the mainstream climate science community is required in this area. No amount of statistical analysis will show the physical thing you want to show. Physics will show that. None should be considered successful before a few decades of future out of sample data have been obtained.
Right now, you can get high model fits with or without CO2 in the model. I also look forward to newer models. I expect to have to wait a couple decades before I see a model that has been accurate for a long enough time to produce confidence in its predictions for what comes after that.
Pratt did not model the future. The exponential function of CO2 level is a fit, and a good one, to the past. It is needed to do a better detrending than some of the linear efforts, or just plain ignoring trends, and a correct detrending helps to show the non-GHG part of the variation.
Mann also does this in his PMO paper. If the physics can clearly explain the trends and cycles of observed and climate model GMST series from first principals, I would agree with your implication that the physics stands alone. If the data were intractable to modeling like we see in many attempts to model economic data, I would agree that we need some a prior insights in analyzing climate phenomena like temperature change.
The present state of climate science lends itself to better analyses of evidentiary data in attempts to confirm or reject general suppositions from the realms of physics. That we can all agree by first principals of physics that GHGs in the atmosphere will lead to global warming is not sufficient in revealing how much warming. More work is always required in most if not all areas, KenF, even those that would encounter technical difficulties.
In any case, the social network of those who use EEMD still looks rather small. What would that entail regarding climate sensitivity? Willard, your first comment above is part of the puzzlement of mine on this issue. It is not so much that the practitioners form a small group but rather that those in the main stream climate science community have not bothered to critique the method or even discuss it informally. When I pointed out that they were using the combined trend and MVD as trend our email correspondence stopped.
I have not seen that follow on paper published to date. It would depend on the starting and ending points used in the estimation and where those time periods were in the MVD cycle. Also recall that in one of my above posts that the argument of this thread, at least for the historical period, would be rendered somewhat different since removal of the MVD per EEMD puts the trends for the observed and ensemble of climate models in close proximity. Comparing individual models to the observed is my preferred mode of analysis.
The only really good test of model fitting is how well the resultant model predicts out of sample data, in this case future global mean temperature, conditional on the evolution of atmospheric CO2. The future is not mentioned, and to extrapolate emissions based on past growth is not a good way to predict a scenario. A large part of the variation was removed by the assumption of exponential emission growth and the log response to it in temperature. That was quite clear from the start, Ken. From the paper you read:.
Multidecadal variability MDV , with an approximate period of 60—70 years Schlesinger and Ramankutty , in the global climate system drew the attention of climate researchers 20 years ago. MDV may be a quasiperiodic climate variation related to the AMO, which is internally caused by the thermohaline circulation variability Knight et al. Not all researchers have the luxury of studying farfetched ideas.
They can safely ignore most of this crap. The only parameter to possibly use going forwards would be 2. That would assume a repetition of the pattern after years, which would not be easy to justify. However, Wally Broecker did something similar in his global warming paper and turned out not far wrong. The hypothesis that would be tested is that the model is an accurate representation of the process that generated the data — in this case the quantitative effect of CO2 accumulation.
That is, if you can tell me the CO2 level in a given year, this model can project its suitably smoothed see Pratt temperature to within 0. This works for any year in the past as Pratt showed.
The part where Alley states: Would not there need to be presented some potential natural sources with at least hypothetical feedback processes? During those exchanges we discussed using linear trends from regression versus other available methods for deriving tends and decomposing series that can handle non-linear trends and non-stationary series such as Singular Spectrum Analysis SSA and Empirical Mode Decomposition EMD.
Kenfritsch See post at ! Most people would know that most of Nature is bounded; there are increases with time that do not exist because the upward curve becomes an inflection, a downturn. It has never been clear to me why these models have not included this concession to reality, observation and conservatism by projecting an eventual downturn.
If it is fossil fuel consumption that causes concern, there are ways to predict a downturn and there is reality that one will happen in time. It will be approximate, it will have errors, but it is surely better than a phantom ongoing increase. Where would Denizens here put the global temperature downturn on these model graphs if they were asked to do this? These are just fluctuations of the surface temperature, caused by the ocean surfaces warming or cooling based on the distribution of the Pacific Warm Pool.
If you want to look at the real trend, either look at ocean heat content or look at the longer-term surface temps. The models have been running hot. El Nino events occurring during slow solar wind periods could explain why their frequency increases during solar minima. People should be skeptical that fossil fuels can be cost-competitive for the next few decades given their self-limiting nature which is often overlooked.
Maybe because it is another argument for replacement. The only way any of us stop arguing about it is when we die. Nothing has been settled in all that time.
ECS still the same. Inability to predict regional weather or climate has not improved. No alarming rate of sea level rise where cost of dealing with it exceeds the benefit of abundant low cost fuel that keeps the industrialized world functioning. The planet however has gotten measurably greener in those 20 years according to NASA. Crop production has never been better. Energy intensive fish farming, made less expensive by low cost fuel, relieves pressure on wild seafood populations.
Fewer killer frosts for agriculture. Water needs for plants reduced in higher CO2 means less irrigation needed. Growing seasons getting longer. Arable land increasing through warming exceeds arable land lost to sea level rise. The atmosphere is the carbon source for those fuels. The more carbon in the atmosphere the more efficient it is to pull it out to produce synthetic fuels. Synthetic biology is almost certainly within 50 years of making hydrocarbon fuel production cheaper than fossil fuels ever were.
The future has never been brighter. Judith can shut this thing down now. I told you all way last year I think it was early Spring that Trump Rules!
I still have a recurring donation going to his campaign and spend a lot of time on Twitter in support. November 8th was probably the best evening of my life surrounded by cheering conservative friends all of us in a state of disbelief over what had happened. When he quickly put Rick Perry in charge of energy I knew good times were ahead. Glad to see you back, Don. I scan the blog for your posts. Someone needs to keep yimmyd honest. He has run amok.
The lo-o-ng war betwixt open and closed society never ends. Like David Springer says at If not for all the noise, watching the left in convulsions would be hilarious. My FB news feed is full of anti-Trump hate. Amazing how hateful the people who supposedly hate hate are.
But they are blind. The WH is very entertaining. We see him losing cabinet members and WH staff at the same rate as in The Apprentice, except instead of firing Meatloaf, he now fires people like his health secretary. The left is amused by comments like when he says Puerto Rico is surrounded by big water.
Yes, heap big water, also known as the sea. He could do nothing for the next 3 years and I would be satisfied. The dems are really hurting: Fossil fuels are back, and economic growth will follow. Meanwhile, the dems keep shooting themselves in the foot with identity politics instead of getting their act together.
The only thing worse for you is if RBG kicks the bucket. This has never been done before and may be the biggest diplomatic coup in a hundred years. Unprecedented exemplary handling of disaster relief and recovery in Texas, Florida, and Puerto Rico. This is just off the top of my head.
Up until recently sea surface temperatures have been quite favorable for warmth which AGW hijacked. Models all include an arbitrarily chosen positive feedback to the CO2 GH warming. As always they leave out satellite data sets when comparing tuned models to adjusted data sets. Yeah — like I said — nuts.
The satellites are new and difficult technologies — and cobbled together originally from eqioment not designed or the purpose. They have been adjusted — and every adjustment brings more precision.
Nor are climate models used to globally integrate data sets to derive atmosphere temperature. On the other hand Mosh fails to understand even the need for humidity adjustments in surface records. The dot colors represents the heat content trend as in Figure 1. Figures 2a and 2b have a line showing an exponential fit to the data with the best fit equation shown along with the RMS error of the residuals given in brackets.
Models are useful for process investigation — but projecting nonlinear divergences into the far future and claiming that it shows AGW is mathematically risible. Bu then mosh has so very little grasp in the way of math or modelling. Salvatore del Prete September 30, at 8: Mosher deliberately chooses to confuse adjustments, which is what torturing the data is called after one has the data, with collecting the data in the first place.
Something he should be well aware of working in the torturing department of data he does. I am not allowed to call it the data adjusting department because he says they do not adjust data. Again reading between the lines, as one has to do, means the data adjustments have all been done by the person in line in front of him. He just uses it. Denial is a strange bedmate. The stratospheric cooling supports the AGW hypothesis, but there are other problems that are unresolved, such as whether surface warming actually causes any damages, and whether surface and troposphere warm at the same rate.
Does stratospheric cooling have any effect on Earth surface life? They referred to a sudden warming of the tropical Pacific in the mids and rapid cooling in the late s. Today we know that the cause is the interaction between ocean and atmosphere…. Latif cautions against too much optimism regarding short-term regional climate predictions: Not only are climate models unable to project anything but non-linear divergence — but climate is intrinsically unpredictable — and this is all just totally nuts.
I know you all have been thinking about it for a long time — just very badly. He told the Guardian: I believe in manmade global warming. I have said that if my name was not Mojib Latif it would be global warming. This is due to the slow changes in ocean currents which affect climate parameters such as air temperature and precipitation. So prediction for next years winter are a coin flip.
Predictions across decades are better than that, and predictions for ? To exploit this decadal predictability, however, a suitable ocean observing system must be installed since the memory of the climate system resides in the Atlantic Ocean. In particular, the thermohaline circulation should be monitored carefully since its variations are most interesting in light of decadal predictability in the Atlantic sector. The current ocean observing system, however, is not suitable to produce ocean analyses that would provide a realistic description of the state of the MOC.
A multimodel approach may be an effective way of sampling model uncertainties. Dealing with the uncertainties of anthropogenic climate forcing seems a bigger problem.
But, as 20 years ago people may have wondered if seasonal forecasting would ever be possible, in 20 years from now routine decadal to multidecadal predictions may become accepted. Seasonal forecasting is a reality in a probabilistic sense for hydrology.
Perhaps he should call himself Mr. But claiming things are uncertain is a sure way of provoking rabid responses from poorly informed climate fanatics like JC. But it is not really about science is it JC? Predicting a cold winter in Germany is impossible — predicting multi-decadal climate shifts in the Pacific is as accurate as tossing a coin.
Predicting temperature over the 21st century? Prediction of how long it will take a rock to fall is pretty accurate. Prediction of how it will tumble through the air..
Energy dynamics in the maximum entropy system is far more relevant. No prediction is very simple. Skillful prediction is a matter of degrees. Energy balance is the right term. We know, for example, that if the sun should go out, that the temperature will decrease.
At the highest levels the climate is not chaotic. It obeys very simple laws. Like that rock falling. It will obey the law of gravity. Now we might be able to predict the first few tumbles, but the long range prediction of the flow field around the rock and how it tumbles second by second, will not be predictable with any significant or actionable skill. At the limit we can predict the temperature of the earth should the sun extinguish.
The global value, the lowest order metric of the system is highly predictable. The exact pathway from 15C down to the temperature of space.. But we know that despite chaos at the smaller scales that at the largest scales the outcome is certain. Time to adjust that satellite sensor it seems to have drifted hot. One of the simple rules chaos is that turbulent flows are chaotic at scales from micro-eddies to planets and stars. But my answer is that it depends on the planetary response to changes in control variables.
Climate is a dynamical mechanism at a scale of thunderstorms to millennial patterns of flood and drought. It tends to equilibrium and thus to maximum entropy — largely through the simple physics of the Planck response.
But it is massively more complex than a tumbling rock. Climate shifts at 20 to 30 year intervals over millennia. Energy dynamic is the right term given large change in TOA radiant flux with changes in ocean and atmospheric circulation.
We predicted multi-decadal climate shifts — said that it added to late century warming and caused the pause. Inept post hos rationalizations notwithstanding — it seems clear that climate is nothing like your memes. The next climate shift will be in a window. On the contrary — thus far, if you have solar, GHG, and volcanic forcings, you can do a pretty good job of predicting the climate.
So uncertainties in future solar and volcanic forcings translate into uncertainties in future temperatures. But the expected changes in CO2 totally swamp out those uncertainties. Anastasios Tsonis, of the Atmospheric Sciences Group at University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, and colleagues used a mathematical network approach to analyse abrupt climate change on decadal timescales. It was found that they would synchronise at certain times and then shift into a new state.
It is no coincidence that shifts in ocean and atmospheric indices occur at the same time as changes in the trajectory of global surface temperature. The trajectory of surface temps during the 20th century — warmer, cooler, warmer — was determined by these regimes. I doubt if JC has read much of anything at all — and has no depth to speak of.
When he is not just totally talking through his arse. Now, your research, Dr. Latif, has been cited by climate change skeptics here in the U. Do you think your work is being misused? I must say this, unfortunately, because these changes we are talking about, these short-term changes, you know, their amplitudes are much smaller than the long-term warming trends. So we are talking about a hold, okay, in the last 10 years.
We are not talking about a net cooling to, say, unintelligible temperatures, unintelligible , you know, which we observed years ago or so. Okay, and also what we predicted for the future is basically that this hold may continue for another 10 years or so, okay, but we did not predict a cooling. We basically said that we would stay for some more years on this plateau. It seems a bit difficult to misinterpret — but JC manages it. It is all fairly obvious — when they are not busily denying it.
The model should not be including and hence following the AMO assisted warming from to It was bound to overshoot from when the AMO leveled off into its warm phase. The issue of masking the Arctic is specious, because the Arctic warming is predominately driven by the warm AMO phase. And with the warm AMO being driven by increased negative North Atlantic Oscillation conditions, it is irrational to associate it with an increase in GHG forcings, or a net increase in any climate forcing.
The lower panel here illustrates my point. Your understanding of fairly a elementary point, which seems to have escaped Ross, is fairly irrelevant to your drive-byed point. Laser Earth Shield vs all deadly space threats, as asteroids, comets and solar superstorms that may blow up all nuclear, as we thankfully escaped in July ! To produce the wave, scientists used a laser to create a high-energy plasma—a form of matter composed of atoms and charged atomic particles—that expanded into a pre-existing magnetized plasma.
Climate models have 0 predictive power. They are invalid; they do not rank as scientific theories, but no more than scientific hypotheses. Science creates models of the real world to predict the real world. These models come in four flavors: Conjectures are incomplete, not ready for experiment. Hypotheses are complete, describing an experiment unambiguously, but as yet no novel, non-trivial part empirically validated.
Theories were once hypotheses with some non-trivial prediction experimentally validated. Laws are theories which have had all possible predictions from the model validated.
Computer models are only a method of computation, but with sufficient text become an integral part of a scientific model. GCMs are computer models. With a dozen or so volumes of text, they become an integral part of the Radiation Forcing model of climate, which has been invalidated — invalidated on its prediction of the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity.
My goodness, yes, WIllard. But this thread is no place to hash out epistemology. We need to take this outside. Maybe you could be specific, as in saying what part of what I described you find unnerving. To keep it simple, a model is a realisation of a theory. See for instance how to model Gettier cases:. Proceeding farther is impossible; we humans cannot do Step 3 test the hypothesis because a test of this hypothesis would require centuries or millennia.
The reason Callendar became famous and nobody has heard of Simpson is because Simpson was wrong and Callendar turned out to be right. It is said Simpson rejected the Arrhenius theory too. No one today rejects Arrhenius, so Simpson was on the wrong side of history. Callendar said that Arrhenious thought that CO2 radiation absorption was negligible, disagreeing with him.
Callendar did not reject Arrhenious. You are right to this extent, no one in this arena today rejects Arrhenius. Callendar was right to this extent: This is junk science, Jim D. The problem with the original Callendar Effect is not the omission of water vapor feedback. A sufficient cause for the model failure is that CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere. The atmospheric concentration is regulated by the Global Average Surface Temperature of the ocean.
The GE has the causation vector backwards. A principle of science missing here is that in the real world a cause must precede every one of its effects. Of course, GCMs can do whatever the programmer lets them do. Models are as good as their predictions, except for scaring the policymakers. Salby deserved to be debunked for referring to trapping heat, that Earth does things to maintain equilibrium, or, for that matter, that anything in the climate system is ever in equilibrium.
IPCC does as well, using words off the grid without stipulating their novel meanings. On the other hand, Salby does recognize that the ocean breathes CO2, and that cloud albedo is a variable. What I regurgitated were principles of science, like the two omitted feedbacks of CO2 and temperature, and causation.
Explain how the ocean acidifies gains carbon while also outgassing. The carbon is clearly coming from fossil fuels.
Explain where the fossil fuel carbon is going if not to the ocean and atmosphere. You have clearly not thought it through from a carbon budget perspective, and Salby never provided a budget either. There are two key points we have to learn to understand: At first CO2 content in atmosphere is determined by dynamic balance between all CO2 emissions to atmosphere and all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to other parts of environment. At second longer trends of CO2 changes in atmosphere follow changes of climate temperature trends and not vice versa.
As far as I am aware you have stated, that the climate sensitivity — i. In addition, I have understood, that you et al.
Even though Svante Arrhenius proved that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, he did not regard it as any threat of climate warming. Instead he regarded any increase of CO2 content in atmosphere as useful for vegetation. And concerning the climate sensitivity, he agrees with you: Scafetta and Lindzen say, that it is lower than 1 and 0.
Wojick, Arrak and Cripwell have said that it can not be distinguished from zero, with which I agree, too. I have in my earlier comment https: Concerning the key point on dynamic balance between all CO2 emissions to atmosphere and all CO2 absorptions from atmosphere to other parts of environment in my comment https: In the same comment I have proved that warming of sea surface water in oceans — especially on the areas where sea surface CO2 sinks are — dominates the recent increase of CO2 content in atmosphere.
In addition, [even] the more minimal influence of total CO2 content in atmosphere on climate warming has been proved by the observations, according [to] which trends of increase of CO2 content in atmosphere follow trends of climate temperature and not vice versa i.
This all should make anyone true that climate sensitivity is so minimal that it can not be distinguished from zero. Therefore, our analysis of multicentury hydroclimate variability suggests that projections of tropical rainfall patterns, and global temperature extremes, will remain uncertain until paleoclimate records and models consistently capture the lower-frequency variability, and associated feedbacks, in the tropical Pacific.
Large changes in top of atmosphere radiant flux result from changes in atmosphere and ocean circulation. It is presumed that radiative effects from albedo change influence climate over a very long time as well — in a way that is not limited to ice sheet feedbacks. Models do not capture the low frequency modes of climate change at all. Hurst effects emerged from very long term Nile River flow data.
It is the result of regime behavior in a dynamical system. We show that the origin of the Hurst effect in the Lorenz model is regime behavior. Climate reality is that the atmosphere and oceans exhibit regime behavior for which the dynamical systems paradigm provides the best explanation for abrupt shifts in climate time series. Climate is neither cyclical or periodic around a trend. The next climate shift is due in a window — and no one knows where that will go.
It will be marked by a break in the Pacific Ocean state. If very low solar does impact the climate through overall oceanic cooling and increasing the albedo that the next climate shift is going to be toward colder global temperatures. Thank you for this interesting post, and for this recent paper: My interest is in what is needed to justify climate policies.
ECS, projected future emissions rates, and projected future temperatures are important inputs to the Integrated Assessment models, which are used to project the economic impacts of projected global warming. However, these inputs are relatively unimportant for policy analysis if the impacts of global warming, over the 21st Century, would be beneficial rather than damaging.
It says, for example: It seems there is a lack of valid evidence to support the contention that global warming would be harmful. On the other hand, several lines of evidence seem to suggest that, overall, global warming would be net-beneficial not detrimental for life on earth, human well-being and the global economy.
According to Scotese , the planet is currently in about the severest coldhouse phase since complex life began, around Ma ago see Figure Arguably, the optimum for life on Earth is around the average global temperature over the period complex life has existed. However, empirical evidence does not appear to be consistent with the projected negative impact of global warming on energy consumption.
Empirical evidence seems to indicate global warming would decrease not increase expenditure on energy; this means the economic impact would be positive not negative for the global economy. This unpromising start continues. During the following Interglacial period, the average global temperature slowly rose to Since , it has increased another. This rate of warming is 50 times faster than what occurred during the previous 21, years.
The enboldened sentence is the clue as to why your oft-repeated argument on the relevance of temperature ranges over M years is entirely clueless. He is a world authority on plate tectonics paleo history and paleo climate over the Phanerozoic Eon. In Gavin Schmidt had a post on RealClimate stating that it was a serious deficiency that the climate research community could not provide a good chart showing that average global temperature profile for the Phanerozoic Eon.
Scotese responded with an updated version of his famous schematic. The Working paper I linked to contains that updated chart and a full explanation of how it was produced. This post is to be part of a book he is writing. Scotese accepts the consensus view that global warming will occur as projected by IPCC.
Handel | Anleger der Anteilsklasse „Emerging Markets“ | Vergleich der Rohölpreise | 1890 o Silber-Dollar-Wertediagramm |