A nice, concise history of climate science
Skeptical Science offers a nice, concise history of climate science:
Two Centuries of Climate Science: part one – Fourier to Arrhenius, 1820-1930
Two Centuries of Climate Science: part two – Hulburt to Keeling, 1931- 1965
Two Centuries of Climate Science: part three – Manabe to the present day, 1966-2012
(h/t reader Jan)
‘Paging CoRev! Three, two, one–‘
My God Dan, you might as well be wearing a flapping red cape and running the Bulls at Pamplona here.
Should be amusing. Thank God it is not my topic.
Mazel tov.
Dan SkS????? C’mon there are far better sites. It clearly is not a history of “Climate Science” as claimed. The “Science” goes far beyond the impacts of described by SkS. BTW, parts 1 and 2 are simple histories of CO2 and GHGs. Part 3 tries to define a history of long range temperatures relative to CO2/GHGs, but is not well supported. Part.3 also makes a lip service attempt at aligning the climate science to the evolving set of Global Circulation Models (GCMs), and it finally tries to explain the counteracting “skeptical” movement to the claims of the effects of CO2/GHGs.
This history does give a fairly strong record of the exaggerated claims assigned to CO2. The current view of the GCM failures to estimate temperatures supports the same exaggeration in the science. This chart shows how they did in the last full IPCC Report AR4: http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AR4_HowsItDoing-500×500.png
Bruce, your obsession with SS is misplaced, but continues with ongoing and frequent articles of little interest in the press. We do not agree on the relative importance on an economics blog, of Social Security, a relatively minor economic impact even in the US to Global Warming mitigation much higher economic impact, a minimal 2% draw down, on the world economy?
Corev,
Kudos!
I do not think I have ever seen a more blatant example of comparing apples to oranges in my entire life.
@CoRev,
Some corrections.
The point is, whether you are capable of understanding it or not, is that physics of atmospheric radiation have been appreciated since shortly after the molecular theory of gases was formulated. This is basic physics, and if it were wrong, the computer or device you are using to respond could not possibly work, because the physics of the semiconductors and their manufacture is based upon the same physics.
Your out-of-context citing of the the chart from the IPCC report reveals your motives. First of all, the time base is incredibly short. Secondly, the figure is out of date. Not only is there significant diversion of trapped energy to deep ocean — which will come back out in a future decade (*) — but the measurements have been revealed to be incomplete, because the Arctic region is sparsely instrumented and, it turns out, the balance of that heat has gone there. This was unexpected.
And, yes, primarily because of delay in action, to keep climate change within safe bounds, 2%-4% of world GDP presently needs to be allocated to the problem. It would have been less than 1% of global GDP had we all started in the early 1990s. If we wait 10 years, it’ll probably be 8% of global GDP. Yes, that’s a very severe recession.
Wanna play dice with the other options?
— Jan
———————
(*) Of course, the heat which comes out of the deep ocean will be applied atop the heat that is being kept and *not* going into the ocean.
———————
Jan other than the snark, your wording is interesting: “The point is, whether you are capable of understanding it or not, is that physics of atmospheric radiation have been ?APPRECIATED? since shortly after the molecular theory of gases was formulated. ” “Appreciated” is not understood, and a long way from FULLY understood! Furthermore the ?out of context chart? was to show just how poorly climatologists understand atmospheric theory. Do you dispute the chart?
The GCMs do represent the fullest understanding of climate science, and the chart shows just how poorly that understanding performs when compared to reality.
Trapped energy? Much of the recent science is trying to explain why there is no warming, not for 17 years using the RSS data. Hiding in the ocean depths, or in the Arctic, and the next study will just show even again how poorly prior attempts to explain climate have succeeded. BTW, both attempts to explain have been thoroughly rebutted. Its too early to tell if the Cowtan and Way study withstands review.
EMichael, do you have a point or are your just snarking from the sidelines.
Dan, this is a general definition of CLIMATE:
cli·mate
[klahy-mit] Show IPA
noun
1.
the composite or generally prevailing weather conditions of a region, as temperature, air pressure, humidity, precipitation, sunshine, cloudiness, and winds, throughout the year, averaged over a series of years. ” A nice, concise history of climate science should expect to see references to at least most of these areas. SkS did?????
Furthermore, climate science is the STATISTCAL study of these components. SkS did????
Finally, recent studies, including the new IPCC AR5, recognize and attempt to explain the importance of the cyclical ocean currents to temperatures. Recent emphasis on ENSO (el Ninos/la Ninas) assigned a major role in the recent temperatures.
A search of all three SkS references finds no finds for ENSO, clouds, and statistical is only referenced in the comments; verifing that these articles are not even close to a history of CLIMATE SCIENCE.
EMichael, Jan ?????
Bruce, I’m waiting for that explanation of the obsession over Social Security, a minor economic issue.
“Social Security, a minor economic issue.”
Not for most retired Americans. Not for most people who are caring for retired Americans. Not for most Americans who hope to retire. So basically, not a “minor” economic issue to any thinking American adult.
As for the scientific evidence for recent global warming, it is diverse and overwhelming:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence
Importantly, plants seem unaware of climate change denial:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/06/080626-plants-warming.html
Similarly, animals are also ignoring the denialist propaganda:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080509113330.htm
http://toughlittlebirds.com/2012/12/12/climate-change-in-the-sierra-nevada-mountains/
So the evidence for global warming is not based on a single measurement. The evidence for global warming is diverse, based on many different parameters that all point the same direction. That is why the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community is that global warming is real.