About angech


Jai at ATTP

angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 6, 2017 at 9:44 am

Jai John Mitchell says:
“The range of estimates of ECS on the low-end are dominated by observational estimates.”
Long time reader of your comments at ASIB.
Says it all really does it not?
Unreliable observational estimates are no match for real time paleological proxies and centennial-based feedbacks in models
The lower end range is not applicable as it only exists in an observational world.
Admire the effort and work that you have always put in to your comments and thanks for sharing those referrals above.
ECS range is around 3.0 at this site as befits IPCC, you can try to push it higher, I have failed to push it lower.
angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
October 6, 2017 at 10:21 am

Everett F Sargent says:
“Well RealClimate has another post on the Millar paper 2017/10/1-5oc-geophysically-impossible-or-not/”

Thanks Everett, I do not go to RealClimate as much as I should, partly as this site keeps well abreast of it which means there is no need generally. I do read a cross section of all of the others though Stoat is quiet for long periods and Tamino is dormant at the moment.

The choice of temperature data
“the conclusion that present day temperatures lie outside of the model distribution.”
remains a problem even if resorting to
” The anomaly between observations and the CMIP5 mean temperature response to cumulative emissions is halved by repeating the Millar analysis with the GISTEMP product instead of HadCRUT.”

The role of internal variability
“Both HadCRUT and GISTEMP suggest strongly negative index values for the period 2005-2014, suggesting a potential cold bias in the warming estimate due to natural variability of 0.1?C (with 5-95% values of 0.05-0.15?C).”
Which means it is 0.2 C potential natural variability shown in just a 10 year period. Interesting to contemplate what the actual range would be in a series of a 100 decades.

The low CMIP5 compatible emissions comment suggests fallibility.
” the combined evidence of the influence of natural variability on the unforced temperature estimate, the disagreement between different observational datasets on warming level, and the uncertainty introduced by an uncertain pre-industrial temperature baseline means that we can’t be confident as the Millar paper suggests on what the current level of warming is.”

and this gem on trust in models v observations ” Alternatively, we trust the cumulative emissions number and treat the models as full proxies for reality, as was done in AR5,”

DikranMarsupial an interesting post


  • DM,
    “Perhaps the oldest and most basic carbon cycle canard stretches its wings again. Whether anthropogenic emissions are large or small compared with the magnitude of environmental fluxes is entirely irrelevant, what matters is whether they are large or small compared with the difference between total natural emissions and total natural uptake as that is what governs the rise or fall of atmospheric CO2 concentrations”
    Thank you for the video and the X-File? music and science with it.
    Much easier to address you after having seen that and the work you put in.
    If I can try to comment without being too antagonistic which is hard when we have differing views I would put for your consideration the following.
    I agree/understand your comment on emissions and sinks.
    1. I did not want to put up a canard.
    “The extra amount we produce is still reasonably small compared with the overall yearly carbon cycle.”
    To me has the same meaning as
    “what matters is whether they are large or small compared with the difference between total natural emissions and total natural uptake as that is what governs the rise or fall of atmospheric CO2 concentrations”
    Particularly when I add “The fact that after several [many] severe outgassing of CO2 events in the past we are still here indicates to me that the biosphere and the earth sea chemical mixes have shown the needed resilience.”
    which to me means that I took sinks into consideration.
    In the video you mention the balance of the emissions with the uptake of the natural environment but then change terms to net sinks [presumably still the environment] which for 50 years have removed half the excess CO2 claimed produced by man.
    There are at least four different natural causes for CO2 in the atmosphere. One is volcanoes. One is natural chemical. Even with no life forms anywhere but the current composition of the earth there would be CO2 in the atmosphere commensurate with dissolved CO2 in the water and calcium carbonate in the rock. The level might even be as high as 280 ppm because the third component, life forms, has a mutable create/ destroy existence.
    Here [the second] emissions /sinks as you put it are in balance, have to be in balance, no choice.
    But then you add the fourth cause, still “natural” but unwanted. Human beings adding in CO2 which is different to normal life activity.
    Once you perturb the level “artificially” you activate the chemical sinks. By your own reckoning these sinks activated at a low level of CO2 increase are capable of taking 50% extra of the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere.
    Now balance is important. As you ramp up the increase in CO2 you might [*] increase the sink capacity way beyond 50%. A bit like pH rise or fall being logarithmic.
    If you choose to attribute, for very good paleontological reasons a linear 50% rise so be it.
    If ATTP chooses to believe the sinks will become saturated and run out of puff so be it.
    I do not wish to change my belief system, sorry but I do not mind being corrected on the science if and [very often I guess] it is needed.

  • angech says:

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    “Another “why” question: Why do you so often just make things up in your head and present them as credible “just so” (yet counterfactual) representations of well-understood real-world phenonmenon”.
    Robbie Burns answer I guess. I see your making things up in my head as thinking about things in my world. The fellow with the different hats theory [De Bono] says you need people like me [questioners] to make other people think about things more clearly which helps consolidate their real world views. Does not make one appreciate the fellow in the funny hat any better though.



crandles 2017/09/11
“I really don’t follow why people think the butterfly effect is not real. On what scale does it not work? Do you accept browning motion creates random movement of a grain of pollen? Does this work in the atmosphere? Does a grain of pollen sometimes cause an animal to sneeze? Does an animal sneezing sometime reveal that animal to another animal. Once you have altered animal behaviour, won’t there be follow on effects that will lead to stampedes of animals at different times or in different directions? Is this big enough yet to talk about unstable convection in the tropics?
On what scale does the butterfly effect break down?
Any one particular path is remarkably unlikely.”

Love your argument, very well put. Sort of how I thought about it but could not articulate.

However there are other considerations in blame games. One of which comes to mind is that the butterfly is not unique or individual but it itself is only part of the mosaic of events that are all intertwined.
Saying that a pathway attributable to the butterfly and the butterfly only ignores all those other exiguous causes [did I make this word up] which also impacted on the hurricane.
For instance every other butterfly , person etc in the world also happened and the same contiguous line must be drawn for all those other effects.
I think the butterfly effect is a real correspondence but a fake cause.

The ECS is not the ECS with constant feedbacks.

“The black line is the case in which we assume feedbacks remain constant; this produces what is typically referred to as the Effective Climate Sensitivity.”

The ECS is not the ECS with constant feedbacks. It is the ECS for a doubling of CO2 whatever the CO2 level is and in the particular group of cases we are talking about it is for the current earth atmosphere in the 21st century. Hence such a figure includes all known feedbacks some of which vary depending on the starting CO2 point.
This in effect removes the wriggle room for forcing definitions such as changing warming patterns, earth system feedbacks and temperature dependent feedbacks. They are for the most part already included in an ECS or it would not be the ECS. Some of these are part of natural variation anyway. Natural variation after all is only the envelope of uncertainty.
The comment “The consensus on the ‘likely’ range for climate sensitivity of 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C today is the same as given by Jule Charney in 1979” gives it away.38 years of satellites and better world wide monitoring and mapping for what? Certainly not an improvement in diagnostics.
As I said before graphs with results only on one side of a 50% projection are suspect either in maths or motivation.
Your graph should include another line to the left giving a lower surface anomaly for the fact that temperature dependent feedbacks and the pattern of warming can also, one expects lead to less warming in future.

“We expect, however, that temperature dependent feedbacks and the pattern of the warming could lead to more warming in future than we would expect based on an assumption of constant feedbacks”. Expectation is not science.


angech | August 30, 2017 at 2:33 am |

“There is a difference between MOVING PEOPLE
and SUBSIDIZING them to continue stupid behavior.”

“I will explain this slowly. I have no issue with people living in flood plains AS LONG AS they,not me, pay the FULL unsubsidized price of living there and fixing the problems associated with living there.

That means insurance reform which every right thinking libertarian understands. Dont make people in kansas subsidize the kooks to choose
to live on fault lines. You wanna live on a fault line? fine. pay a true unsubsidized insurance cost to do so. No federal bailouts.”

Blinkered ethical approach often seen in educated superior people who do not share other peoples problems.

People are not kooks because their great grandparents traveled to Kansas and settled there.
The choice they have, giving up family and friends and property and family ties to move some where else “Safe” is easy to spout when you do not live there.
If they have an earthquake, or people in Houston have a flood you can choose not to help and absolve yourself by saying it is all their own fault.
Impeccable line of heartless logic.

I will explain re smokers so you get it.
People did not choose to smoke.
Tobacco is addictive.
People made cigarettes and sold them society promoted it.
Now I know doctors who refuse to treat people who smoke and people who are overweight.
I repeat.
A blinkered ethical approach often seen in educated superior people who do not share other peoples problems.
Smokers are in my family and in your family.
Smokers are my friends [and enemies].
Smokers are part of the fabric [for richer or poorer] of our society.
Smokers and overweight people share a higher burden of disease.
A civilized doctor, a civilized society, picks up the pieces. We help them because they need help whether they caused their problems or not.
I do not expect you to change your attitude.
I have lots of friends who are vehemently anti-smoking and believe as you do. They are wrong as well.

The Mirror

Looking in the mirror.
” best to get ahead of the game than to be stuck losing an eyeballs game to intellectually inferiors– ie wuwt”
Games theory is an integral part of science. At least one, probably a lot more Nobel prizes, real ones, [not sorry for the snark].
Games have rules, even ones without rules, Climateball.

I was most interested in the part.
“A consensus is not manufactured, it emerges if all the various lines of evidence suggests a consistent picture. It is true that overturning a consensus can be very difficult, but this is often because doing so requires not only illustrating the strength of the evidence supporting the new position, but also why all the evidence supporting the original consensus is wrong, or has been misinterpreted. Overturning a consensus is not meant to be easy. ”

Turns out that consensus can be wrong?
Who could have guessed.
Perhaps the little line escapes the oversight.
“all the various lines of evidence suggests a consistent picture.”

Herein the problem for people like Steven, and others here, who see one bit of excellent proof, CO2 increase in atmosphere gives a warming atmosphere, while ignoring at least two other facts.
The earth is not a straight test tube with only air and CO2, there are confounding features.
Life is resilient and adaptable.

Ignoring the fact that not all the various lines of evidence support warming to the degree that the textbooks properly say should occur.

Strangely, from this side of the mirror, every argument used suffers from the same flaws in reverse.

“why all the evidence supporting the original consensus is wrong, or has been misinterpreted”

This is wrong. A lot of evidence there, most pointing in one direction.
Only hope for Skeptics is that it has been misinterpreted. History does give a couple of well known examples.

Origin of proto suns

angech says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 15, 2017 at 4:11 am

The answer to the first part of the problem seems to be that a natural cloud of space dust cannot and must not, by the laws of physics aggregate into a disc.
As always.
Natural would be a cloud of dust existing as it always has just drifting along in space stationary as Ragnar says.
Of course this is itself physically difficult [impossible to conceive].

The answer lies in two aspects.
One billions of years ago when the very large original and their second and third, tenth offspring exploded scattering the dust outwards not to return. Escape velocity.
Combined with an expanding universe? theoretically each particle would be most unlikely to congeal with other particles.
Gravity would however tend to draw some adjacent particles into files and rows of outward extending streaks so one can imagine over time streaks/streams of related matter traveling semi adjacent to each other.
Time is the factor here.
The universe was a lot smaller and these particles were impeded by the other stars and exploded star materials ending up in swirls around the other stars til they too exploded and clumping together with the other debris and interacting with the debris from the newer exploding stars.
These of course included heavy metal particles with more gravitational attraction.
It is not the gravitational attraction that causes the formation of discs and protostars. It is the left over differential movements of the particles that have come from different stars in different directions being forced into a mass that is assumed to all have the same angular momentum but doesn’t.
The bits that travel in opposite directions collide lose velocity and become subject to the effect of their gravity and start pulling everything in that was previously happily moving in unison with its own debris pattern [and not coming together]

The problem is somewhat similar to the discussions on Carbonate build up in the crust of the earth. On massive time scales we have a crust impregnated with billions of tons of inorganic matter that was once organic, now unrecognizable.
The universe is at least 4 1/2 times older than the earth with all that extra time to fashion the stars we see today.

Thanks for the interesting post. I hope my contribution is not perceived as token.

zeke temp adjustmnets 2014

Zeke (Comment #130058)


Actually, your explanation of adjusting distant past temperatures as a result of using reference stations is not correct. NCDC uses a common anomaly method, not RFM.

The reason why station values in the distant past end up getting adjusted is due to a choice by NCDC to assume that current values are the “true” values. Each month, as new station data come in, NCDC runs their pairwise homogenization algorithm which looks for non-climatic breakpoints by comparing each station to its surrounding stations. When these breakpoints are detected, they are removed. If a small step change is detected in a 100-year station record in the year 2006, for example, removing that step change will move all the values for that station prior to 2006 up or down by the amount of the breakpoint removed. As long as new data leads to new breakpoint detection, the past station temperatures will be raised or lowered by the size of the breakpoint.

An alternative approach would be to assume that the initial temperature reported by a station when it joins the network is “true”, and remove breakpoints relative to the start of the network rather than the end. It would have no effect at all on the trends over the period, of course, but it would lead to less complaining about distant past temperatures changing at the expense of more present temperatures changing.

CO2 and the atmosphere ATTP

Thank you for this post.
The effect of adding extra CO2 to the atmosphere is fundamental to explaining the temperature of the atmosphere and the earth.
While I disagree on the level of the feedbacks and other interactions the temperature increase due to CO2 increase causes it has an obvious effect*.

One of the problems I have is defining the surface of the planet as an effective entity.
Because of the atmosphere, which in a sense is part of the surface when it reflects light [That light bounced of earth] we do not have a real surface like a meteorite or the moon but a layer of surfaces depending on what depth the light penetrates too.
This leads to your concept of a radiating layer [then the layer from which the energy is radiated directly to space will move to a slightly higher altitude.], also known as a TOA,  which is an artificial designation of the effective surface layer of the earth.

“Essentially, the presence of greenhouse gases prevents energy from being radiated directly from the surface to space; instead it’s radiated from within the atmosphere. you can think of there being a layer in the atmosphere where the energy can be radiated directly to space.” Yes.

“However, the temperature of the atmosphere decreases with increasing altitude, and so moving the radiating layer to a higher altitude will reduce the outgoing energy flux.”

Not happy with this comment as the outgoing energy flux total must be higher. The real temperature at the artificial TOA is not the same thing as the construct of  “what temperature  the TOA needs to be to radiate this amount of energy into space. Two problems.

The amount of energy going out to space from a square meter at that extra height means there are more meters for the energy to go out from. Which means there is an increased outgoing [total] energy flux. Which makes sense as the earth is hotter.

Technically if the earth is warmer then the temperature at the higher altitude now being used would be warmer than what it was before. Practically as it is an artificial construct the air is warmer at lower heights than it used to be and probably does not change in temperature at all. Being very thin and not much GHG or energy absorbent molecules at 100 km.

“If we were in energy balance before adding the extra CO2, then we’ll now have more energy coming in than going out, and we’ll warm until we’re back in energy balance.”

Conceptually the energy coming in balances the energy going out. The instance you put the CO2 extra in it increases the heat of the atmosphere it is in*  by delaying the return of that heat as energy to space. This is a momentary and continuous delay the end effect is as you say, energy in equals energy out or energy balance..


Thank you to Allan and U3A for asking me to give a talk on science in medicine today.  I wished to draw attention to the progress that has been made.  Scientific medicine has moved beyond  the standard of faith that it enjoyed with alternative forms of medicine but it has failed in important areas to bring people along with it.  I hope to  correct or clean up some of the doubtful areas and at the same time mention some of the new advances being made.  I will touch on the place of alternative medicine, diet and vitamins. I will address vaccines then issues with population health where medicine has moved away from treating the individual to treating the population.

Medicine is the art of healing concerned with the health of individuals. It consists of diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions, both of the body and the mind. It helps  the body and mind repair as much as is possible.

Healing is an innate function. The body has developed both repair and defensive mechanisms. As has the mind. Without a will to survive, to repair and recover the body alone is like a rudderless ship.

I hope you will find it informative.