There’s so much to talk about in the IPCC AR5 report, and I have other obligations this weekend. So, it seems time for an open thread on the subject.
A few starting thoughts:
1. It seems news coverage is rather muted. Google News says there are 1087 news media articles that use the phrase “IPCC AR5” as of this writing. That’s low. Typically a major story will get from 2000-4000 stories. Many of the 1087 are blog posts from new media outlets like Huffington Post. The typical outlets like NYT and the Guardian have their obligatory boilerplate coverage, but it doesn’t seem to have much trickle down. The phrase “It doesn’t play in Peoria” might be an apt description of the news coverage.
2. It seems the climate skeptics have landed and have obtained a beachhead. Many stories I’ve viewed contain skeptical opinions, far more so than in 2007 with AR4. Even the NYT in this story U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions mentioned the Heartland Institute’s opinion about how many degrees of warming might be expected.
3. The science is apparently not settled at all. The failure of the IPCC to give a “best estimate” number for climate sensitivity, which breaks with tradition in the previous four reports, is remarkable. In a footnote at the bottom of page 11 of the SPM, it seems that there is dissension in the science, and in the ranks:
![nobest-estimate-sensitivity[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/nobest-estimate-sensitivity1.jpg)
So much for the much ballyhooed “consensus”.
Dr. Roy Spencer sums it up:
A best estimate for climate sensitivity — unarguably THE most important climate change variable — is no longer provided, due to mounting contradictory evidence on whether the climate system really cares very much about whether there are 2, or 3, or 4, parts of CO2 per 10,000 parts atmosphere.
YET…the IPCC claims their confidence has DOUBLED (uncertainty reduced from 10% that 5%) regarding their claim that humans are most of the cause behind the warming trend in the last 50 years or so:
“It is extremely likely that human influence on climate caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951-2010.”
4. The things that we saw with the leaked SPM draft that suggested a more moderate approach, seem to have been disappeared. For example, Bob Tisdale has done a before and after comparison here: Side-By-Side Comparison of Draft and Final IPCC AR5 SPM on Warming Plateau and Attribution and noted that “It appears the politicians agreed to delete the attribution discussion of the warming plateau.”
You can do your own comparisons with the two documents:
the final draft (7Jun2013) and the approved final version (27Sep2013)
5. Dr. Richard Lindzen has made a statement, via Climate Depot, that sums up what many of us think, and why AR5 SPM is a credibility train wreck:
I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.
Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.
Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.
6. On the plus side, contrary to ongoing claims from that alarmist media mill side there are no mentions of tornadoes and hurricanes in the extreme weather events section. They give low confidence to tropical storm activity being connected to climate change, and don’t mention mesoscale events like tornadoes and thunderstorms at all. Similarly, they give low confidence to drought and flood attribution.
They’ve only talked about heat waves and precipitation events and being connected. From Page 4 of the SPM:
This is consistent with what was reported last year in the IPCC SREX report ( IPCC Special Report on Extremes PDF)
From Chapter 4 of the SREX:
- “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
- “The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
- “The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
Let’s hope this lack of attribution of severe storms to “man made climate change” in AR5 finally nails the lid shut on the claims of Hurricane Sandy, tornado outbreaks, and other favorite “lets not let a good crisis go to waste” media bleatings about climate change.
Now with two IPCC reports making no connection, and with Nature’s editorial last year dashing alarmist hopes of linking extreme weather events to global warming saying:
Better models are needed before exceptional events can be reliably linked to global warming.
…we can finally call it a dead issue.
There’s simply no connection between droughts, hurricanes, thunderstorms, flash floods, tornadoes and “climate change”. Note to Brad Johnson of “Forecast the Facts”, and Bill McKibben of 350.org, both of whom daily try to link weather events to climate change: IPCC says STFU.
There are many more things of interest to discuss, but this should provide a good primer. – Anthony
“There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change”
“The statement about the absence of trends in impacts attributable to natural or anthropogenic climate change holds for tropical and extratropical storms and tornados”
“The absence of an attributable climate change signal in losses also holds for flood losses”
Perhaps this should be drawn to the attention of the Executive Order issuing President and the EPA. It would seem that their actions are not supported by the science.
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.” Winston Churchill
Is it “…blog posts from new media outlets like Huffington Post…” or should it be “…blog posts from news media outlets like Huffington Post…”?
the whole ‘report’ is bullshit
One of the most notable statements is in the same paragraph says “most” is due to man , then the anthro contribution is the same as what has happened , which makes is “all due to man”.
A result of staying up all night before making key changes to wording I assume but makes a farce out of anything else they say.
Hiding in the Oceans – Here is a chart showing the temperature changes in the Oceans (Surface, 0-700 metre and 0-2000 metre ocean) and then how much will they warm by 2100 at the current trends. The 0-2000 metre ocean will only increase to 0.22C by 2100 at the current rate. That’s not hiding, that’s basically nothing.
http://s18.postimg.org/d8222h8jt/Ocean_Temp_Change_Q2_2013_to_2100.png
Magnus Magnusson wrote about Iceland, “During these early Celtic and Viking settlements, the climate was significantly warmer, and about 25% of Iceland was covered with forest compared to 1% now.” The Vikings. (1980) Pages 188-191. ISBN 978-0-7524-2699-0
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnus_Magnusson
It occurs to me that the CAGW gatekeepers at Wikipedia have either become lax or have realised that the gig is up & they cannot stand in the face of evidence about the Mediaeval Warm Period being warmer than the 21st century.
AR5: “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human induced contribution to warming is similar tothe observed warming over this period. ”
I don’t see a lttle asterisk pointing us to a legally accountable definition of “similar to”.
Perhaps it means “more than half”. LOL
> YET…the IPCC claims their confidence has DOUBLED (uncertainty reduced from 10% that 5%)
Bah. The confidence has gone up 5/90 x 100%. The DOUBT has been cut in half. If you’re going to play games with percentages and ratios, let’s do it right. And no, there’s not 2X less doubt. Fie (in advance) to anyone who claims that! 🙂
Thanks, I feel better now.
But, the “standard excuse” keeps using volcanoes for some reason as a part of the “natural changes” that are the excuse for the “pause” in global warming: Yet there have been NO substantial eruptions since 1991!
So how can they continue to include as a cause for a 17 year pause in warming something that has NOT occurred measurably in the records? Unlike the three explicitly clear spikes (drops) in atmosphere transmissivity at Mauna Loa observatory in 1963, 1982, amd 1991 from volcanoes, there has been NO CHANGE since 1992. .
See the plot on the WUWT Solar Page:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/grad/mloapt/mlo_transmission.gif
However, even those three volcanoes only had a 1 to 1-1/2 year impact on global temperatures.
https://sfb574.geomar.de/74.html
And there have been no large volcanoes since Pinatubo in 1991-1992.
Uh, it looks like parts of the MSM are waking up:
“U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?_r=0
The first sentence:
“The world’s top climate scientists on Friday formally embraced an upper limit on greenhouse gases for the first time, establishing a target level at which humanity must stop spewing them into the atmosphere or face irreversible climatic changes.”
Yikes!
In previous reports, the IPCC asserted that it was settled science that increasing CO2 levels caused increasing surface temperatures. Now, the IPCC asserts that the heat is hiding in the ocean. This is an implicit admission that previous settled science was wrong.
If you make a claim that Volcano’s offer a significant increase in CO2, you get shot down because everyone knows that Volcano’s only emit a faction of the CO2 as man. but suddenly they are responsible for causing a slow down in warming?
What I have been noticing on all the sites that support GW, is that they believe that this report offers total confirmation that man has caused increased warming this century. The only part of the report that they are remotely interested in is the statement that backs this up.
There is a large portion of the public that will simple never believe that man is not causing GW, and that it is dangerous. IF by chance ice levels in the arctic return to the levels of 1979, they will most likely say that this is the result of some other factor that has given us some breathing room and we must double down on preventive measures while we have the chance.
The most recent issue of Sceptic has lumped GW skeptics in with other Science deniers, as if there could be no doubt at all. I have always respected this publication, and have always been troubled by their stance on GW
It makes it very hard for someone like me, who really does not have the book learning to examine the facts properly and has to rely on other people for information to wonder if I am letting my bias against snake oil salesman blind me to the truth and GM really is happening.
From the UK Guardian:
IPCC Report in Doubt: Are Climate Change Skeptics “Dumb”?
Governments have implemented fuel taxes on non-renewable energy sources and poured billions into constructing wind farms, and other “green” energy strategies, all in the name of reducing carbon emissions. If these scientists are eventually forced to admit that their climate change theories have been terribly mistaken, it will certainly be a very costly one; incalculable sums of money will have been wasted, and the reputation of the scientific community will be left in tatters. On this basis, what would be the incentive for the IPCC to ever confess they were wrong?
By: James Fenner (Op-Ed)
http://guardianlv.com/2013/09/ipcc-report-in-doubt-are-climate-change-skeptics-dumb/
The missing hot air can be found apparently in the language of the report itself
Leon0112:
At September 28, 2013 at 7:08 am you say
No. It is an EXPLICIT admission that previous settled science was wrong.
I have repeatedly explained this on WUWT recently, for example here
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/ipcc-fails-to-come-clean-over-global-temperature-standstill/#comment-1428640
Richard
Here in Israel it got a headline coverage with the usual yellow coverage, and a few hours later just disappeared altogether.
The coverage here too is in the hands of activists of the green shade, shallow and (very) inaccurate.
Sad.
gopal panicker says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:50 am (Edit)
the whole ‘report’ is bullshit
—————————————————
I suspect, based on several years of watching this circus, that it is only the interpretation that is bullshit. The underlying science, such as it is, has always been open to varying levels of understanding and attribution. My internal metaphor is that of Rorschach Ink Blots. The science can be seen through different prisms depending on where one is at that particular time.
You can see how the kids over at SkS are interpreting this PR exercise, they think it supports them. The fact is the IPCC seem to have reeled in the gotterdammerung and that implies the big report will not support the “destroy the village to save the village” mindset. George Osborne, a giant among men, has already stated that he will no longer allow green initiatives to impoverish British citizens. All in all I feel encouraged by this little brain fart that was released into the world yesterday. It lacks confidence and a cause for action and so appears to be an empire in decline.
It isn’t over till the fat lady sings but that sloppy, slovenly, over fed pig is tuning up those vocal chords. This science by committee is already smelling like last week’s guests.
AR5 [my bold]” The reduced trend in radiative forcing is primarily due to volcanic eruptions and the timing of the downward phase of the 11-year solar cycle. However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of changes in radiative forcing in causing the reduced warming trend.”
Well the reduced trend can hardly be due to the piddling volacism since 2000 compared to 1980-1997 warming period. This BS is simply padding out the solar attribution with _something_ (albeit anti-correlated) to make it sound like the are “lots” of factors at play.
So this para actually boils down to a statement that it’s due to a quiet sun. In comparison to 30 years of ridiculing such a suggestion this is quite an about face. It also requires a statement about how much this newly recognised affect accounted for the earlier warming. You can’t have your cake and eat it.
AR5: “There is medium confidence that internal decadal variability causes to a substantial degree the difference between observations and the simulations; the latter are not expected to reproduce the timing of internal variability. There may also be a contribution from forcing inadequacies and, in some models , an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols). ”
Well how many is “some” ? “Nearly all models” would be ‘consistent’ with this claim. IIRC there are only two of the CMIP5 model outputs that come remotely close to actual recorded temps. So I guess this is more legally accurate but misleading phrasing.
However, it is the first official IPCC admission “some” (read “nearly all”) models have ” forcing inadequacies”.
I find Table SPM.1 particularly telling, note the fourth column is theLikelihood of further changes, Early 21st century fails to commit to any predictions/projections over that time frame. Oh, they’re virtually certain late 21st century (5th column) will be a hot mess though. LOL.
It seems the warminsts next move will be to shut down the IPCC and coem out with a series of smaller reports where they can better control the “scientists” and the science. It will be interesting to see if the UN and asociated govs let them get away with it.
Legal Analysis of EPA’s Proposed Carbon Pollution Standard
http://www.globalwarming.org/2013/09/27/legal-analysis-of-epas-proposed-carbon-pollution-standard/
The analysis below subjects EPA’s proposed Carbon Pollution Standard to the D.C. Circuit Court’s rigorous standard of review under Clean Air Act Section 111. Previously, I explained how EPA’s proposed standard, whose purpose is to reduce greenhouse gases, is likely to increase greenhouse gas emissions in practice.
Since AR4, instrumental biases in upper-ocean temperature records have been identified and reduced, enhancing confidence in the assessment of change.
If several instrumental errors have been found within a period of six years, how exactly is this supposed to enhance our confidence in them? Is my hunch right, that the corrections were all in the direction of more warming?
Anyone want a laugh? Check this out :
The Gore Effect Strikes UN Global Warming Meeting: Just in time for the UN IPCC meeting: Unusual cold hits Stockholm
The cartoon of AG !
http://www.climatedepot.com/2013/09/25/the-gore-effect-strikes-un-global-warming-meeting-just-in-time-for-the-un-ipcc-meeting-unusual-cold-hits-stockholm/
This part is absolutely hilarious:
[bolds mine]
So, we can say with high confidence the ocean has dropped a full 0.1 pH unit (pretty darn hard to measure) with a whopping 3 measurement locations worldwide? Yea, right.
Furthermore, the use of percentages with pH is extraordinarily inappropriate:
8.2 = 0.00000000630957 mol/L
8.1 = 0.00000000794328 mol/L
Increase = 0.00000000163371 mol/L
% Increase = 25.8925412
So, while technically correct (in a way) it’s misleading in that 26% is not 26 out of 100 but 26 out of 1X10^14 (if just taking 0-14 scale). Clear evidence of advocacy over the “whole truth” as being the IPCC’s priority.
We must never forget the grim truth that the IPCC, like all quasi-government bureaucracies, is primarily interested in its own perpetuation. Everything else is a secondary consideration.
George Orwell would be proud of the IPCC and the way it portrays the ‘facts’ about climate.
RACookPE1978 says:
September 28, 2013 at 6:59 am
But, the “standard excuse” keeps using volcanoes for some reason as a part of the “natural changes” that are the excuse for the “pause” in global warming: Yet there have been NO substantial eruptions since 1991!
=================
and interestingly enough…..if you remove the Pinatubo cooled years 1992-1994….you get this
….a pause in the warming of 22 years
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/warming-pause-is-actually-22-years/
I have had a look at Figure SPM5 – Radiative forcing components – and compared to the equivalent Figure 2.4 in AR4. Some interesting things emerge.
1. The uncertainty bands for CO2, CH4 and NOx have all been doubled.
2. The forcing effect per unit of CO2 (potency) has been reduced by 10%, whilst that of CH4 has almost doubled.
3. Rather than these factors causing doubt in the minds of the scientists it has not changed their high confidence in the CH4 and NOx figures, and the confidence in the CO2 figures has gone from “high confidence” to “very high confidence”.
4. The forcing impact of halocarbons has been halved, the uncertainty range increased five-fold in absolute terms (ten-fold in percentage terms), yet confidence in the figures has risen from “high confidence” to “very high confidence”.
If I get figures wrong, I tend to lose confidence. But then I am not a climate scientist.
I have laid out my figures at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/
The IPCC report seems to have bombed in the Spanish press. The Spanish national TV RTVE mentioned it on the Friday evening weather forecast and then proceeded to cast doubt on it before moving on sharply.
John West:
At September 28, 2013 at 8:13 am you say
Yes, it is “hilarious”. But I am certain the IPCC authors don’t know why.
If the IPCC is right that (n.b. I doubt they are right) the “pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era” then that would explain ALL of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration over that time.
The pH change would have altered the equilibrium concentrations of atmospheric and ocean surface layer CO2 such as to have caused the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. And such a pH change may have resulted from submarine volcanism having released more sulphate ions into the thermohaline circulation centuries ago so they have recently reached the ocean surface layer. And the carbonate buffer would not prevent the injection of additional sulphate from inducing the pH change.
Simply, the IPCC statement could be interpreted to be an indication that the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration “since the beginning of the industrial era” was NOT caused by emissions of CO2 from human activities.
Richard
A chart has been making the rounds, I think created by wunderground.com, miss-representing this SPM statement by leaving off the highlighted, non-greenhouse part:
“It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations AND OTHER ANTHROPOGENIC FORCINGS TOGETHER” [emphasis mine]
Here is the image:
http://icons.wxug.com/hurricane/2013/IPCC_version95.png
Here is where it is posted:
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=2535&cm_ven=gp
And the carbonate buffer would not prevent the injection of additional sulphate from inducing the pH change.
====
Biological processes release magnitudes more sulphate than that…..
Thanks, IPCC. Now I understand what’s been happening.
All that heat created by human CO2 emmitters has sequestered itself in the deep dark oceans where it lurkes, ready to pounce (someday). But, on it’s way to the ocen depths it took time to launch hurricane Sandy, a couple of awful tornadoes, some forest fires in Colorado, floods in southern Alberta and, no doubt, caused Captain Schettino to stear his cruise ship onto the rocks. I now have new bedtime stories to scare my granchildren with.
As I said on jonova, I like how the Coyote Blog put it:
The IPCC claims more confidence that warming over the past 60 years is due to man. But this is odd given that the warming all came from 1978 to 1998.
So, only 20 out of the last 60+ years have been warming? And this is supposed to be runaway catastrophic warming?? Not even close.
Latitude:
Your post at says September 28, 2013 at 8:47 am
“More” than what?
The DMS emission is great but does not go into solution. And the volcanic injection would be an addition to the sulphate from biological processes. Indeed, if the injection disturbs the “biological processes” then that could add to the effect. The pH change from sulphate emissions is not inhibited by the carbonate buffer.
The important point is that the IPCC asserts (without adequate evidence) that the pH change has happened. If so then that pH change could be responsible for ALL the observed rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration since 1750.
Richard
I’ve extended the analysis recently posted on WUWT to include the 1850-1900 time period. It shows
The results of the earlier analysis are confirmed
The rate of increase of the temperature slope has remained remarkably constant since 1850
The detection method is first order insensitive to amplitude variations in the natural variation
There is no detectable AGW contribution over the observation interval
An AGW contribution of the magnitude specified in the IPCC AR5 summary would be easily detectable by this method.
Details are available here
I can live with the claim that Humans are causing most of the warming, since 90% of zero is still zero. Probably the only claim that they have made that hasn’t been debunked yet.
Richard, too much coffee??
biological processes that make the ocean work produce more acids than CO2 or anything else…
and those same biological processes produce more sulphates than any volcanoes
they have to, or it don’t work
Can’t really comment on the report itself, but the comment about the coverage being lacking is interesting. Here in the UK the Guardian and of course Guardian TV (aka the BBC) gave it full on coverage with headlines on every news channel – which meant the mantra was repeated throughout the day every 20 minutes on BBC News 24 and BBC Radio 5 live – the Beeb’s (usually quite good) live news / sport radio channel.
This was of course quite annoying not helped by one presenter I quite like deciding to indulge in the D-word during his report / interview. Never mind, it is a feeding frenzy and anyone who disagrees is in the “flat earth society” – again.
In amongst this of course there were some positive signs – for a start whenever a “scientist” woudl appear they would be questioned about the pause and when they responded with the “the missing heat is in the oceans” argument at least a couple of tame BBC presenters pointed out the lack of evidence for this.
Added to this Bishop Hill (AW Montford) appeared a few times on the BBC outlets both nationally and in Scotland (where he and I are both based) and seemed reasonable, sensible and calm in pointing out the holes.This could be a positive sign or a sop to the idea that BBC needs to be “more impartial” on this subject. Maybe.
Another thing – BBC news runs in daily cycles – breakfast, mid-day, travelling home time, evening news and last thing at night news. Normally a story like this runs through them all but by the last of those Syria had pushed it off the top spot and the previous reports had been trimmed quite a lot.
Maybe we might get a balanced view from now on, but I doubt it.
The IPCC news is on the front page of the Los Angeles Times and ninth page of Wall Street Journal. Note that Roger Pielke Jr. was quoted. The LA Times article is at:
http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0928-climate-change-20130928,0,2765027.story
[begin quotes]
The world’s leading climate scientists have for the first time established a limit on the amount of greenhouse gases that can be released before the Earth reaches a tipping point and predicted that it will be surpassed within decades unless swift action is taken to curb the current pace of emissions.
[…]
The report also addressed the so-called hiatus, a slowdown in the rise of surface temperature that has been observed over the last 15 years. That slowing of the increase in temperatures has been seized on by skeptics to cast doubt on the science of climate change.
The report touches the subject only briefly, saying that temperatures fluctuate naturally in the short term and “do not in general reflect long-term climate trends.”
[…]
Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and a leading critic of the climate science establishment, praised the core science of the report, but said many of its conclusions, including the idea of a carbon dioxide limit, are neither new or surprising. He criticized the panel for not doing more to acknowledge uncertainty over how climate change will express itself in the near term.
“By not addressing the issues associated with the ‘hiatus’ in warming the IPCC missed an opportunity to clarify this issue, and also has guaranteed continuing allegations from its critics that is has dodged this issue,” Pielke said.
[…]
At the comment above, I gave the wrong link to my analysis of the radiative forcings in the report.
It should be http://manicbeancounter.com/2013/09/28/radiative-forcing-unipcc-ar5-undermines-ar4-but-scientists-have-unshaken-confidence-in-their-work/
Compared with 2007, the forcing components have change for the major greenhouse gases, and the uncertainty bands have increased. But the climate scientists are if anything more confident in their results.
I tried comparing the draft and final versions using the Word Compare function. (Never used it before–pretty neat!). Got through about half the document before giving up in disgust about the waste of my time. Their estimates of temperature increase are particularly frustrating–they managed to delete the reference period in a few cases, and in another case they replaced the 1850-1900 reference period with “preindustrial” but left the numerical increases the same!
I have about a dozen examples in Dropbox. Including of course the famous footnote, now gone, where they say they can’t give an estimate of climate sensitivity because of disagreement.
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/AR5%20revisions%20to%20draft%20summary.docx
richardscourtney says:
September 28, 2013 at 8:33 am
John West:
At September 28, 2013 at 8:13 am you say
If the IPCC is right that (n.b. I doubt they are right) the “pH of ocean surface water has decreased by 0.1 since the beginning of the industrial era” then that would explain ALL of the rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration over that time.
The pH change would have altered the equilibrium concentrations of atmospheric and ocean surface layer CO2 such as to have caused the observed rise in atmospheric CO2. And such a pH change may have resulted from submarine volcanism having released more sulphate ions into the thermohaline circulation centuries ago so they have recently reached the ocean surface layer.
Except that this doesn’t happen, as I’ve pointed out in the other thread where you raised it!
Sulphate ion is one of the conserved species in the ocean, its concentration is constant relative to the other major ions such as Cl-
Submarine vents and volcanoes are observed to contribute no sulphate to the ocean. E.g. El Hierro: “The degassing of the volcano could be observed from the research vessel Cornide de Saavedra. The composition of these gases was fundamentally CO2 with complete absence of sulfur compounds.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120417080336.htm
“4. hydrothermal vents (Table 4-3 from Von Damm et al, 1985). These high-temperature waters differ from seawater in that Mg, SO4 and alkalinity have all been quantitatively removed.”
http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Lecture_Notes/CHPT4.pdf
Re Table SPM.1
“Increased incidence and/or magnitude of extreme high sea level.”
Only “likely” until late 21st century, when it becomes “very likely”?
Given the great certainly expressed on all other parameters, I thought they’d be a bit more sure of this one.
Latitude:
I am copying all your post at September 28, 2013 at 9:02 am
I fail to understand why my drinking coffee would make you so obtuse.
Nature emits orders of magnitude more CO2 than human activities, but people claim the emissions of CO2 from human activities are causing the observed rise in atmospheric CO2.
The dynamics of the CO2 sequestration processes indicate those processes can easily sequester all the emitted CO2 (n.b. both natural and anthropogenic) each year. However, the sequestration processes do not sequester all of the emissions each year so the atmospheric CO2 has risen and is rising. This is explicable as being a result of a change to the equilibrium of the carbon cycle.
(ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005) )
It is no more improbable to suggest that submarine volcanism could add sulphate to the ocean surface layer than that human emissions can add CO2 to the atmosphere. Indeed, it is less improbable because the sulphate addition could be enhanced by biota.
The IPCC says the ocean surface layer has altered its pH by 0.1. If that is true then the result would be a change to atmospheric CO2 concentration of the form and magnitude which is observed. This change to atmospheric CO2 would be caused by the alteration to the equilibrium concentrations of CO2 in the air and ocean surface layer. Indeed, this hypothesis would explain the peak in atmospheric CO2 concentration around 1940 which is indicated by the data Beck collated.
I do not know if the sulphate hypothesis is true or not, but it is more likely than the suggestion that emissions of from human activity are accumulating in the air: the observed dynamics refute that suggestion.
Richard
I think I get it now. Nature was responsible for the warming from 1979 to 1998, but humans were responsible for the warming from 1999 to 2013. But there was no warming from 1999 to 2013, you say? Well, I stand by my conclusion.
I fail to understand why my drinking coffee would make you so obtuse.
=====
Because I’m agreeing with you….and you don’t understand why
Re Lyle says: September 28, 2013 at 8:56 am
Your theory that heat is lurking in the ocean depths has already been investigated by Hollywood “scientists”:
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.1000misspenthours.com/posters/postersh-m/monsterthatchallengedtheworld.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.1000misspenthours.com/reviews/reviewsh-m/monsterthatchallengedtheworld.htm&h=300&w=385&sz=102&tbnid=g7YW34sDMhgtcM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=124&zoom=1&usg=__jD8CYKJIaWWy0QVj_rZHvl_1RdM=&docid=P-783sadkryWEM&sa=X&ei=DQFHUoSYHbOHyQGUh4HABg&ved=0CIwBEP4dMA4
Latitude:
At September 28, 2013 at 9:26 am you say you are agreeing with me.
Clearly I have misunderstood your posts addressed to me.
Please explain the meaning of your posts at September 28, 2013 at 8:47 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/#comment-1429756
and at September 28, 2013 at 9:02 am
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/#comment-1429775
I do not see the agreement and I would like to. Please explain.
Richard
Here is an eye opening article on the general poor quality of the released report, including inconsistencies it contains on the Antarctic ice cap and other defects:
“IPCC: Frist AR5 SPM Report Lousy!”
http://informthepundits.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/ipcc-first-ar5-spm-report-lousy/
As time goes on the IPCC reminds me more each day of a 21st Century Claudius Ptolemy with his geocentric consensus theories that lasted for nearly 1400 years. His theories to explain the observed movements of planets were so convoluted and inconsistent that they now seem to us comical given that the whole basis of his conceptual model was total wrong (think of humans being responsible for climate change and extreme events). Lets hope our world politicians wake up well before another 1400years of trillions spent on total hogwash.
@ Neil Jordan
Try using Tinyurl and your mega link shrinks to http://tinyurl.com/k5e9xv9
;o))
Greg Goodman;
So this para actually boils down to a statement that it’s due to a quiet sun. In comparison to 30 years of ridiculing such a suggestion this is quite an about face.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is not only an about face, it is an actual contradiction of what they said in the leaked second order draft, which says, and I quote from Ch11:
Possible future reductions in solar irradiance would act to cool global mean surface air temperature
57 but such cooling is unlikely to exceed –0.1oC by 2050 (medium confidence).
As many holes and misleading statements as there are in the SPM, we now have to watch all the peas under all the thimbles. Will the final draft of the full AR5 report contradict the SPM? Or will we see an AR5 report that has been edited to match the SPM?
Presumably to achieve a forcing level of 3 they must be relying in positive feedback, yet if the heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean it would also remove the provide feedback and so this begs the question where did the heat come from that the oceans are hiding!
davidmhoffer:
At September 28, 2013 at 9:39 am you ask
Will the final draft of the full AR5 report contradict the SPM? Or will we see an AR5 report that has been edited to match the SPM?
a similar situation to this occurred when John Houghton was IPCC Chairman. He then decreed,
“We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8’ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed.
Richard
Happened to catch a little snippet on CNN yesterday as the IPCC report came spouting how horrible CAGW was and how Miami beach was underwater during high tide. From other research i have looked at in the past revealed sea level was rising at rate that even a snail could outrun I had to dig a bit deeper to find out that Miami Beach is one of many areas experiencing subsidence. Funny how Wolf didn’t mention that.. For the report GW was to blame for the sinking of a city. But what else would i expect from MSM…
Sorry for the error in formatting of my post to davidmhoffer. Richard
richardscourtney;
a similar situation to this occurred when John Houghton was IPCC Chairman. He then decreed,
“We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM.
This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal so perhaps it should – at long last – be changed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yep, my assumption is that the full report is being published after the summary for the express purpose of enabling this. Should be changed, but won’t be is my guess. With the SOD having been leaked though, I’m not sure how much they can get away with. Beyond understanding how much they can get away with, we must also keep in mind the adage that one should not ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence. I expect that the final AR5 full report will provide us with much amusement as the issues come to light and the IPCC spins itself in circles “explaining” things while we engage in conjecture as to the root cause of each one.
One question remains unanswered.
“What has the World got to show for decades of research and BILLIONS of taxpayer funds allocated to global warming?”
Of course, we know what THEY got….possibly the biggest boondoggle in the history of pseudo-science fraud since alchemists claimed they could make gold.
I am sure that everybody would agree that fossil fuel use is high and rising, and that we should be improving the efficiency of the processes that convert these sources. Also that we should be finding alternative sources of power. Now whilst the IPCC and the warmists are also working towards these laudable ends, they are clearly using misanthropic methods.
As Eliot says in his Murder in the Cathedral;
“….. the greatest treason. To do the right deed for the wrong reason.”
As for the UNIPCC itself, it is yet another example of the unacceptable face of Globalisation
– – – – – – – –
To the community interested in the history of Western Philosophy, can you see Hegel’s dialectic in the IPCC’s open contraction representing ‘science’. The key IPCC Bureau’s intellects are mocking rational science’s insistence on logic of non-contradiction. Hegel’s epistemology was the wannabe irrationalist’s green light for ‘pseudo-science’ assuming the role of science.
In Richard Lindzen’s statement there are even more clues to the IPCC being a safe haven for anti-scientific irrationalism mimicking science (pseudo-science). More comments in that regard to follow.
John
Richard,
As for changing the underlying reports, that’s what Appendix A states, albeit in Latin.
I may have missed this earlier, but did anyone else see the Natl Geographic “Earth Under Water” video? It takes up where the NG Statue of Liberty under water cover left off.
Dr Hansen gets a bit part.
1-Does the IPCC designate an optimum level of CO2 in the atmosphere? This trace gas 350 parts per million ( just imagine if you has a debt of $ 1 Million and offered to pay off $ 350 would your creditors be happy?) Would they like zero? The Marxist inspired self hatred on nations, then personal views has now evolved into the self hatred of all life.
2- The missing heat in the oceans. I think I understand the difference between heat, temperature and thermal capacity and have a basic understanding of fluids. And even with the new blackholes in the ocean it remains a fact that water is more bouyant when warm and will rise. Thus there is a circulatory system in the upper layers of the ocean. On a toal speculation I would suggest that this circulation level is no more than 100 m on the basis tht the Ceolocanth has survived more than 400 million years below this depth. And that species has outlived, and is likely to outlive, most species on Earth today
Questions to IPCC.
What specific data are there in this report compared to the last report which is the cause of the increase in the confidence level from 90% to 95% in the assertion that human influence is responsible for most of the warming since 1950?
And
Isn’t this an admission by the IPCC that because the warming during this period has only been about 0.12 degree C per decade that this warming is not alarming?
Go read Michael Mann in the UK Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers
The usual nonsense with ad hominems in the blog comments.
It is apparent that the writers’ first language is not English. Do you think they could hire a couple of 7th grade English teachers to write coherent sentences for them?
Jeff Patterson says:
September 28, 2013 at 8:58 am
A very clear exposition. Can you persuade Anthony to make it a post? Preferably after all the AR5 fuss dies down so that it gets the attention it deserves.
John Whitman says:
September 28, 2013 at 10:04 am
Yes. Follow that with Marx’s elevation of Mankind to Godly power and wisdom. Marx’s Central Committee, or whatever you want to call it, plans the very conditions of Mankind’s existence through planning the conditions of Mankind’s work. Marx, too, was committed to dialectic. On several occasions, I have had the Dialectics of Nature explained to me. I was too polite.
Maybe its impending sale has prompted at least elements of the LA Times to begin to practice journalism:
http://www.latimes.com/science/la-sci-climate-change-uncertainty-20130923,0,791164.story
Mike McMillan says:
September 28, 2013 at 10:52 am
Like most religions, CACA needs its own Flood Myth.
Marcel Crok of De staat van het klimaat explains why he thinks the IPCC did not give us a ‘best estimate’ of climate sensitivity in th Summary For Policymakers.
Booooom! All those years of work gone in a flash? This can’t be allowed to happen.
Sorry, forgot the link.
http://www.staatvanhetklimaat.nl/2013/09/27/ar5-gives-no-best-estimate-for-climate-sensitivity-breaks-with-a-long-tradition-good-news-is-hidden-from-policy-makers/
FrankK says:
September 28, 2013 at 9:39 am
About 1400 years elapsed between Ptolemy’s work (c. AD 130) & Copernicus’ (1543), but it took another century at least before the heliocentric hypothesis became generally accepted. The Church didn’t allow heliocentric books to be published in Rome until 1822.
Let’s hope it doesn’t take that long for CACA finally to be tossed on the trash heap of scientific historical shame.
On the secret IPCC climate sensitivity.
They pursue a restrictive “carbon budget”, stating that it takes a trillion metric tons of carbon to be burned for the earth to warm up 2C:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
“No more than one trillion metric tons of carbon could be burned and the resulting gases released into the atmosphere, the panel found, if planetary warming is to be kept below 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) above the level of preindustrial times. That temperature is a target above which scientists believe the most dangerous effects of climate change would begin to occur.”
In order to be able to state this, they must know:
– what amounts of CO2 are released into and discharged from the atmosphere by other processes than fossil fuel burning;
– what principal effect the total release of CO2 has on planetary warming;
– what the feedbacks are in response to the CO2-only(/no-feedback) temperature increase;
– therefore: what the climate sensitivity is, in their view.
If not clarified, the “carbon budget”, in Pachauri’s wording is voodoo science.
It’s going to be a long & winding road toward scientific reality:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/27/8-damning-facts-from-the-u-n-s-climate-change-report.html
On the hidden heat. One assume it got there starting at the top layers of the ocean and then going down. If this is the case, would there not be a pattern from the Argos readings of temperatures increasing and then decreasing as far down as the buoys go.
Layman alert. Is that so stupid, what I posit above?
Missing heat hiding in the deep ocean….hiding the decline…what’s with these folks & their proclivity to want to hide things? Oh, wait, I think I get it….
One of the best things to happen out of this controversy is the dismantling of the saw “The science is settled.” The IPCC folks used to scoff at solar influences on climate….now they gladly embrace a quiet sun as evidence for a pause in warming. Rather duplicitous….. I think it is safe to say that the science is far from being settled.
I don’t know about everyone else, but I’m enjoying this spectacle immensely!! The Hockey Team and Al Gore got away with murder for years, costing the world’s consumers massive sums spent on ill-advised schemes of dubious value. Won’t get fooled again. Open the windows and let the light in.
Jabba Le Chat (@JabbaLeChat) says:
September 28, 2013 at 9:39 am
@ Neil Jordan
> Try using Tinyurl and your mega link shrinks to http://tinyurl.com/k5e9xv9
Or he could have followed it through Google and gotten to http://www.1000misspenthours.com/posters/postersh-m/monsterthatchallengedtheworld.jpg
– – – – – – – –
Again this is addressed to the community interested in the history of Western Philosophy – this is installment #2.
NOTE: This one is . . . . very complicated because the source philosophy’s concepts are famously convoluted.
Lindzen quote above mentions the IPCC assertions of model merits and its reluctance to clearly state there is any significance in observations that can discredit the model assertions.
Is there a philosophic root in the IPCC’s epistemic priority of climate models over observational knowledge? Can you see the IPCC Bureau’s intellects using the irrational epistemology of Kant’s ‘analytic-synthetic dichotomy***’ to justify giving more ‘scientific’ weight to models (analytic propositions) over observations based knowledge (synthetic propositions)?
{ *** I will very very simply paraphrase the extremely convoluted and diffuse Kant source. The A-S dichotomy is that if something is real (synthetic) it cannot be true (analytic) and if it is true then it cannot be real.}
Kant found the analytic more of a source of human idealism / creativity / inspiration, not so much with synthetic.
It appears the IPCC finds more scientific significance and / or epistemic value in models (analytic), not so much in observational (synthetic) knowledge.
Coincidence or not wrt Kant epistemology versus IPCC bias toward models over observations?
John
Three Mile Island, Global Warming and the CIA
http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2012/01/08/three-mile-island-global-warming-and-the-cia/
It’s over for the alarmists. The media will turn on them sooner rather than later. The concepts are fairly easy to understand, even for a dummy like me.
In Germany and Switzerland the majority of reader comments, even in leftist papers, have turned against climate alarmism – a first. On liberal TV programs you can learn about the damage wrought by “climate measures” like bio-fuel production. The tide has turned.
The SOP on sensitivity and on models has gutted the IPCC as a useful source for policy makers.
Why would you institute a carbon tax or cap and trade if you have no idea what effect, if any, the resulting reduction in CO2 emissions would have on temperature? And why would you be alarmed by model based scare stories if the models they are based on have been discredited by the IPCC in its frantic attempt to explain “the pause”.
More policy stuff at my site: http://jaycurrie.wordpress.com/2013/09/28/the-divergence-problem/
Once more with feeling. Can anyone answer this?
On the hidden heat. One assume it got there starting at the top layers of the ocean and then going down. If this is the case, would there not be a pattern from the Argos readings of temperatures increasing and then decreasing as far down as the buoys go.
Layman alert. Is that so stupid, what I posit above?
jeremyp99:
re your question at September 28, 2013 at 1:59 pm, viz
Probably but not certainly. There are not many buoys and the ocean is big. And that is why the myth of heat hiding in the ocean depths is possible although improbable.
But, as you imply, nobody knows how the heat could have got down there, and if it did it must have done it where there are no Argo buoys.
Richard
Calm, model Ptlomeu was completely wrong in concept. But it worked reasonably. and with acceptable accuracy.
Beyond the current climate models.
Conclusion: The assertions of IPCC5 can take me to extreme reactions.
How did CO2 know that is was time to stop warming the air and start warming the bottom of the sea?
I just posted the following comment @ Judith Curry’s blog in the thread “IPCC diagnosis – permanent paradigm paralysis”
– – – – – – –
– – – – – – – –
Judith,
I endorse explicitly your call for the IPCC to be disbanded.
And I recommend to the broader climate science community to do preliminary pre-planning for an international inter-university consortium to provide a non-governmental way to achieve professional guidance and auditing and assessment of climate science. Please participate in its leadership and formation.
Although I agree with your comprehensively negative assessment of the IPCC, I do not agree with your thinking on the fundamental causes of the manifold IPCC failures and missteps and irrational myopias. I think the fundamental causes are very profoundly at the epistemological basis of reasoning and science in the areas radically influenced by post-modern philosophy.
John
John Whitman says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:48 pm
“Is there a philosophic root in the IPCC’s epistemic priority of climate models over observational knowledge? Can you see the IPCC Bureau’s intellects using the irrational epistemology of Kant’s ‘analytic-synthetic dichotomy***’ to justify giving more ‘scientific’ weight to models (analytic propositions) over observations based knowledge (synthetic propositions)?”
Kant’s denial of cause and effect was useful for the Prussian state to form their mindless desindividualized/dehumanized soldier. Basically just a replay of Plato’s cave allegory.
Climate models are similar – only now the prisoners in the cave don’t watch shadows of the real world; they get a computer animated movie via a video beamer.
could someone please inform the science advisor to the uk government that individual weather events cannot be attributed to global warming.
within the last 3 days mark walport (i point blank refuse to use his title of sir) has implicitly stated on the bbc
” we can now say that certain extreme weather events can be attributed to climate change”.
it would appear he is either a liar,or a fool.
richardscourtney;
But, as you imply, nobody knows how the heat could have got down there, and if it did it must have done it where there are no Argo buoys.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As improbable as it is, it seems to me that if it were true, it further boxes the IPCC into a corner. The heat capacity of the oceans is what? 1200 times that of the atmosphere? If the missing heat is going into the oceans, then it will take 1200 times as long to get an increase of a single degree as first thought, and that is assuming they got everything else correct, which they clearly have not.
When I see this claim of heat going into the oceans, it is usually accompanied by some hand waving raising the spectre of this trapped heat all coming out at once and lighting the atmosphere up with ten’s of degrees of heating all at once. Which in turn would defy the laws of physics by an order of magnitude more ludicrous than anything we have seen to date out of the IPCC.
davidmhoffer:
Thankyou for your post addressed to me at September 28, 2013 at 2:57 pm.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/#comment-1430090
Yes. I very strongly agree.
Richard
John Whitman says:
September 28, 2013 at 2:42 pm
“Judith Curry wrote,
Fortunately much of the population seems to be immune, but some governments seem highly susceptible to the disease. “”
That’s stupid. The IPCC was made to order BY the governments to have a pretense for confiscating more of the assets of the citizens. Doesn’t she know this?
GLOBE international has infiltrated every party in the Western “democracies” and controls the energy policies of that party. The goal is to have a scientific pretense to establish biofuel production and wind/solar to better buffer the next oil price shock.
It is not even a terribly nefarious goal; but the perversion of science was unnecessary. A rational debate of the goal is not possible because they have from the start operated with deception.
Re milodonharlani says: September 28, 2013 at 11:56 am
You drilled into a nerve on the future of the LA Times. At one time, the new prospective purchasers were considered to be none other than the Koch Brothers:
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/15/business/la-fi-koch-oaktree-protest-20130515
“Unions protest over potential sale of L.A. Times to Koch brothers
“Demonstrators protesting the potential sale of The Times to the politically conservative Koch brothers march outside Oaktree Capital Management headquarters.”
Last month, that alternative was dropped.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/356590/koch-brothers-will-not-purchase-la-times-not-profitable-venture-eliana-johnson
“During an in-house awards ceremony in April, roughly half of the staff of the L.A. Times signaled their intent to quit the paper if the Koch brothers purchased it; three Los Angeles City Council members introduced a motion calling for the council to pull investments by the city’s pension funds from the paper if it is sold to buyers who did not support “professional and objective journalism.” The source adds that, “While they respect the right of the protesters and politicians to rail against the Kochs’ owning newspapers, they had no impact on the decision.””
Keitho,
the “scientists”, activists, politicians and snake-oil salesmen are so heavily committed to this scam, that they cannot, ever, back down. There will always be another excuse.
The SPM says,
The SPM’s claim that volcanic eruptions and a reduced TSI during 1998 to 2012 could cause the pause in warming was fabricated and is false. NASA publishes satellite data that show a large reduction in the amount of volcanic aerosols during the recent period. Blogger Lucia Liljegren reports that the average forcing from the lack of volcanic eruption during 1998 to 2012 is 0.28 W/m2 more than the period [1951] to 2012 as shown in the graph.
http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/VolcanicAerosols-500×500.png
(For comparison, the carbon dioxide (CO2) forcing increase during the period 1998 to 2012 was 0.43 W/m2.) There were no volcanoes since 1992 that could have caused a cooling effect.
The TSI solar forcing is a trivial 0.018 W/m2 less during 1998 to 2012 than 1951 to 2012. The volcanic and solar forcing is 0.26 W/m2 greater in the recent period, which would have cause increased warming, not a pause.
…It seems the climate skeptics have landed and have obtained a beachhead. …
Here is a communique from the front:
There is still widespread fighting in the hinterland, and our troops have yet to obtain all their primary objectives, though there is active fighting in the comment columns of major newspapers. The enemy is, however, woefully short of scientific ammunition and fuel as a result of limited but very accurate bombardment with paper rebuttals, so we expect that there will be a general retreat to prepared defensive positions over the next few weeks. These will probably be of the “Even if Global Warming isn’t happening it’s still a good idea to cut back on CO2” type.
On other fronts the enemy alliance of green activists and businessmen/politicians is showing increasing strain, and it seems likely that a flank may be exposed before too long. If this happens, of course, we will expect to overrun their positions in a matter of days….
Correction: “1915 to 2012” should be “1951 to 2012” in the previous post.
@John Whitman
…Although I agree with your comprehensively negative assessment of the IPCC, I do not agree with your thinking on the fundamental causes of the manifold IPCC failures and missteps and irrational myopias. I think the fundamental causes are very profoundly at the epistemological basis of reasoning and science in the areas radically influenced by post-modern philosophy…
Um. I think that the fundamental cause was that the IPCC was commissioned by activists and scam merchants with a message to push and a profit to make respectively. As time went by it became increasingly staffed by them. Senior staff and administrators were then bamboozled into acquiescence by preying on their ignorance and desire to appear important and not to lose face, while junior staff were browbeaten into compliance.
If that’s another way of saying what you have just said above, then I agree with you…
The Globe and Mail in Canada is putting Andrew Weaver on the front line to tell us “Now that climate change is beyond doubt, let’s focus on solving it” by Andrew Weaver
Special to The Globe and Mail
“We can no longer ignore the facts: Global warming is unequivocal, it is caused by us and its consequences will be profound. But that doesn’t mean we can’t solve it.
On Friday, the International Panel on Climate Change released its Summary for Policy Makers – a 36-page document that is considered to be the most comprehensive assessment of climate science ever published.”
And
“Levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are already higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years and we are on track to take them to levels not seen since the dinosaurs roamed the Earth. In essence, we are turning back the atmospheric clock by tens of millions of years in the span of just a few decades. This trend will lead to the increased occurrence of extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy, the floods in Calgary and the flashfloods in Boulder, Colo. This rapid rate of change will stress the infrastructure we depend on in our communities and our cities and lead to the widespread extinction of species around the world. And so, I believe, we must take action.”
Weaver has become a laughing stock green elected politician when he recently advocated for the independence of Vancouver Island! His choice of examples terribly undermine what’s left of his scientific background. Once a politician, always a politician; it’s irreversible just like… never mind. 😉
NOAA data shows that the global average ocean temperature from surface to 2000 m depth increased from 1998 to 2012 by only 0.058 °C.
http://data.nodc.noaa.gov/woa/DATA_ANALYSIS/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/DATA/basin/yearly_mt/T-dC-w0-2000m.dat
The temperature change in the layer from 700 to 2000 m increased from 2005 to 2012 by a trivial 0.02 °C. The climate model warming trend of the surface to 700 m layer is 4 times greater than the trend of the measurements as shown here;
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FOS Essay/OceanLayerTemp.jpg
Ocean warming cannot explain the global warming hiatus.
The SPM claims
This seem to refute the IPCC speculation that significant heat is hiding in the deep oceans.
Question: Where is this ocean temperature data below 2000 m? It isn’t on the NOAA website.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index.html
Bob! Too Funny!!!!! Seriously though, maybe this question should be engraved inside the rotunda of the White House as a warning to all others. It captures the epitome of the primrose path better than any statement I have seen. It could stand as a post. Too brief? Just one sentence? It SHOULD be a post. With nothing more added. Our current president could not do better than to admit he led millions of people down that primrose path. Ike has never spoken so loudly as in this current time and space.
Dodgy Geezer says:
September 28, 2013 at 4:34 pm
SitRep for D-Day Plus One. Not allowed to use the word for which D stands in this case.
TomRude says: September 28, 2013 at 4:48 pm
Quotes Andrew Weaver via the Globe and Mail,
We issued a press release on the floods in Calgary:
http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=670
It says,
So obviously, CO2 emissions and global warming has nothing to do with the occurrences of flooding at Calgary.
Andrew Weaver is responsible for producing the world’s worst climate model. The graph compares the Canadian climate model projection of global average surface temperatures from 1960 to 2040 (blue line) to the observation (red line) as recorded by the Hadley Centre and the Met Office in the U.K. The average of 38 models (green line) is also shown.
http://friendsofscience.org/assets/files/documents/CanESM2.jpg
The Canadian climate model forecasts the most extreme warming for the 21st century of all models. With the model matched to the observations during the 1960s, the discrepancy between the model and 2012 average temperature is 0.71 Celsius.
The URL in my post of September 28, 2013 at 4:52 pm got broken. Try
http://tinyurl.com/ludefz9
There is a hidden tragedy in all this. Many good people, including those on Watts up, have had to sacrifice 25% (approx) their life span to fight this nonsense produced by UN IPCC. That is quite sad because all that effort could have been used in a very positive and productive way instead of fighting the fabrication (of ‘science’). I salute and thank these faithful people. Thankfully truth will prevail.
Thank you Ken! Glad to see the Globe’s BS being addressed heads on!
More fun from the propagandists who are obviously worried the catastrophy might not be spinned properly and their message be repressed by the world media, barely paying attention to the IPCC… I am not kidding! Read this nutcase:
http://www.straight.com/news/431816/climate-denial-camp-still-framing-ipcc-message?comment_mode=1#add-new-comment
Among Foundations funding the so called “independent” Daily Climate parent company:
The David and Lucile Packard Foundation
The Heinz Endowments
Oak Foundation
The Rockefeller Brothers Fund
milodonharlani says:
September 28, 2013 at 12:10 pm
FrankK says:
September 28, 2013 at 9:39 am
“About 1400 years elapsed between Ptolemy’s work (c. AD 130) & Copernicus’ (1543), but it took another century at least before the heliocentric hypothesis became generally accepted. The Church didn’t allow heliocentric books to be published in Rome until 1822.”
Gentlemen, would you be surprised to learn that Galileo was exhonerated by the Catholic Church in 1992!!! I’m sure he was pleased to learn this. Note this was 4 years after Hansen’s 1988 pitch to congress on global warming.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_was_Galileo_exonerated
Yeah, we may have a long fight on our hands with the Synod of Climate Bishops.
So what the IPCC is saying that they have 95 percent confidence that the zero warming in the last 17 years is due to man.
Gary Pearse says:
September 28, 2013 at 5:31 pm
Too much to hope that Hansen will be excommunicated from the AAAS & cast into outer darkness before his earthly demise & return to home planet of Venus, I suppose. House arrest I guess is out of the question, since he has been promptly released after all priors.
After over 100 comments, this one will likely be read by very few people. That’s okay. If it helps even one AGW true believer to get out, it was worth the time it took to create it.
****************************************************************
.
.
Just a decent guy. He worked hard at his job,
loved people and animals, tried to do his best,
and he believed — in the system.
.
.
Then, one day, he started to think.
He started asking questions.
And he realized that something was wrong.
.
.
“He was absolutely determined to discover the truth. There was no way to prevent him.” (Evil Model World Programmer)
.
.
Dedicated to Dr. Murry Salby and all the truth seekers who got out
of the AGW modelers’ fantasy world and walked into the real world.
.
.
You can, too.
.
.
If you want to.
.
.
.
.
And when you get there, we at WUWT will be cheering you on.
.
.
With love and high hopes that you will choose TRUTH,
Janice
From Anthony’s starting thoughts No.3, quoting Footnote 16 on Page 11 of 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.’
I wonder if the disagreement is basically over the difference between the IPCC’s best estimate from its speculative climate models (~3°C) in the past and that from supposedly “empirical” sources like the Mauna Loa CO2-data and the HadCRUT4 surface temperature data (~2°C). Up to now the IPCC appears to have studiously ignored this disparity in the foundations of its thought-structure and just presented the best model estimates to public view. But this merely served to cover up the internal contradiction in its thought-system that the disparity represented and ignoring it did not make it disappear. On the contrary, it just made the unseen “empirical” estimate into another member of the elephant herd that’s crowding out its living room. The IPCC must resolve the seemingly-perpetual conflict between its model-results and its empirical data if it is ever to become a credible representative of real, honest-to-goodness climate science.
davidmhoffer says:
September 28, 2013 at 9:57 am
richardscourtney;
a similar situation to this occurred when John Houghton was IPCC Chairman. He then decreed,
“We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.”
This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. So, IPCC custom and practice dictate that the AR5 report will be edited to match the SPM.
**************************
So, in other words, the IPCC does things somewhat bass ackwards, right? In high school and college, one does not manipulate a body of a paper to match the closing or summary paragraphs(s) written by someone else; you write the closing to summarize and match the body that YOU wrote. And the summary is written by the politicians, right?
I would thing that this alone should be enough to raise flags of suspicion on the credibility of the IPCC, wouldn’t it? And the former chair of the the panel is openly admitting to it!
As a non-scientist, I would be suspicious of such a panel after hearing this before I even read the “science” in the paper (assuming I would understand it). When criticizing the IPCC, it seems to me that this is something that deserves to get prominently noted and widely disseminated.
At least that’s how I see it for whatever it’s worth.
Where did the heat in the ocean go? Tchaaah! Straight to the (melting) polar ice caps, of course.
/irony
And on this day in 1873,the Univestity of East Anglia was founded.Make of it what you may.
If heat were hiding in the ocean depths, raising it a few thousandths of a degree, it’s not hiding from the surface, it’s essentially gone. The ocean depths are colder than the surface, and hence heat cannot move upwards from them. At most, slight warming there might slightly slow the rate at which the surface lost heat to the depths. Thermodynamics sez. It’s the Law.
As a last resort they might say (in effect) of their reliance on models, “But it was the very best butter.”
Tom rude @5:27 heinze endowment is owned and run by obama’s sec of state john kerry’ s wife.mmm
IPCC believer comes unglued during a live interview without his handlers and PR people protecting him. It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad. I almost feel sorry for him.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/down-under-blunder-david-suzuki-unmasked-as-a-know-nothing-huckster-on-australian-tv
well the Australian news papers have fell for the IPCC scam http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/bondi-under-siege-as-swelling-ocean-seeps-into-suburbs-20130928-2ul6l.html
Among the herd of elephants in the room, there is an even bigger monster the IPCC seem oblivious about and the “journalist” unable/unwilling to see: if the heat went in to the depths of the oceans without a trace, how can the IPCC be certain that the supposed extra heat didn’t come from there in the first place? How stupid do they think we are, “oceans ate our homework” just doesn’t cut it, unless you belong to the reprogrammed herd of journalist that have participated in the “climate science communication” camps.
CD (@CD153):
Your post at September 28, 2013 at 6:32 pm comments on my having explained the IPCC custom and practice is to adjust IPCC Reports to agree with their summaries.
Please note that David Holland reports (at September 28, 2013 at 10:51 am) that this custom and practice is the official procedure for the AR5, and he provides quote and reference
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/28/thoughts-on-ipcc-ar5-spm-discussion-thread/#comment-1429898
Importantly, this procedure is completely in agreement with the purely political (n.b. NOT scientific) purpose of IPCC Reports as explained in my post in another thread. This links to it
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/27/sorry-ipcc-how-you-portrayed-the-global-temperature-plateau-is-comical-at-best/#comment-1428167
Richard
I don’t know if this has been posted yet, but this article in the Daily Mail seems to treat the report as gospel and tells of this weatherman who is breaking down because he believes the trash they are spreading.
I don’t have the social skill to tell someone they’ve been suckered politely. The article is at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2436551/A-weatherman-breaks-tears-vows-NEVER-fly-grim-climate-change-report.html?ICO=most_read_module
Imagine if all the people of the Earth believed the climate of the planet is not our fault?
Jeff Mitchell:
At September 29, 2013 at 12:19 am you link to a Daily Mail report of a weatherman who is considering a vasectomy to avoid having offspring who will suffer from global warming.
This seems to be a good example of the Darwinian selection which has provided humans with intelligence.
Richard
No intelligence in the report on Television New Zealand – 95% certainty, rising sea levels drowning Pacific islands, rapidly melting ice, increasing floods and hurricanes, and threats to many animal species – including (sob, sob) that polar bear floating on a chunk of ice! Same thing reported in the New Zealand Herald, which rarely prints anything except the warmist view. Then, interviews from Greenpeace and a spokesman for the wind power association. Not that either of them had an axe to grind, of course!
Here in Germany, the left-listing media are literally going off over the new IPCC-report, hysterically claiming “The science has settled”, “We’re all doomed” and “Burn the heretical deniers at the stake” – crap 24/7.
Proposals for a swift relocation taken.
Yep, make up for the omission by his father.
– – – – – – – –
Theo Goodwin,
Thanks for your comment.
I agree that people use what Hegel and Kant and their intellectual successors wrote to justify their irrational crusades and illogical movements. Their justifications work because there seems to be a mantle of academic respectability. We have seen it happen with the IPCC centric AGW crusade / movement.
John
– – – – – – – –
DirkH,
Thank you for engaging. Appreciate it.
Yes, it is amazing what irrationality in science and society can be released by someone like Kant (and his intellectual heirs) through his surprising popularity in philosophy departments in major universities.
John
@mikelowe2013
Investigative journalism is almost dead in New Zealand.
Television in NZ only covers the news from a left wing (Labour-Greens) ,’progressive’, alternative side.
They support the Labour-Greens answer to every problem which is more bureaucrats, more politicians, more committees, more laws, more restrictions of personal freedom, more state interference and, above all, more taxes.
Barbara Dreaver and Jack Tame from TV1 haven’t got a clue.
TV3 (Now owned by Ironbridge Capital) is, for all intent and purposes, the de facto media arm of the Green Party.
As for the New Zealand Herald, they moved to the same political side (Labour-Greens) in 1996 when they were taken over by Independent News & Media .
– – – – – – – –
DirkH,
I think Judith Curry is saying there appears to be generally something going on with the gov’ts being so generically susceptible.
You are specifically stating your view in detail what is going on.
It looks not inconsistent.
John
Hi All,
I have a friend who engages me in climate science debates via Skype chat. He is not a scientist and likes to make his points by blustering. I told him that I didn’t think the heat was being hidden in the oceans. He came back with the following (obviously cut and pasted from an alarmist site). Could anyone please tell me if this is wrong and if so, where (preferably in layman’s terms)? Many thanks for bearing with me.
Steve
“A thought experiment (or one you could actually do if you have a small camping stove handy) shows this.
“You have an enclosed well-insulated pot half-filled with water with an electric heating element suspended in air near the top. The element is shielded from direct line of sight to the water by a white metal sheet, which leaves air gaps near its edges to allow convection. Eventually the air above the water exceeds 100 Celsius. Evaporation will commence long before this temperature is reached and were it not for the water vapour condensing on the inside of the container you would have clouds. Yet all the time there is a net transfer of energy from the mini-atmosphere to the mini-ocean. While the real atmosphere is not beset by giant electrical coils, it does (in theory) have infrared emitters (GHGs) which alter the equilibrium temperature of the ocean surface, so the thought experiment is enough to show that the line of reasoning you presented is unphysical.
“Now back to the real ocean. If the surface experiences some extra downwards IR flux, surface temperature increases, the temperature gradient increases, so the heat moves quicker until the total heat transport away from the surface (in all directions, heat is not partisan) equals the new total power being input to it. So for some time even while surface temperatures are constant the deeper ocean can be warming. Yet all the time the power level of evaporation and conduction into the atmosphere may be larger than the power being sent downwards.
eg if transfers happen at these powers: Space–>Ocean = 240, Ocean–>Air = 240, Air–>Ocean = 5, Air–>Space = 235.
Then temporarily the net fluxes are: Space–>Ocean = 240, Ocean–>Air = 235, Air–>Space = 235.
The delta heat content is: dSpace/dt=-5 (thanks Sun), dAir/dt=0, dOcean/dt=+5.
The energy all balances, the ocean heats, the clouds still formed, no laws got broken.
Where is the trick? The trick is that you cannot think of the ocean and air in isolation because they are not a closed system, the Sun is putting in energy to the ocean all the time and that is ultimately the cause of warming the ocean. Fiddling with GHGs changes the distribution of the Sun’s energy until a new equilibrium is reached.
“No NET transfer from atmosphere to ocean is needed for ocean warming. A slight reduction in the rate of transfer from ocean to air courtesy of more IR returned from the air is sufficient to force a higher surface temperature.”
Steve,
If heat was traveling downward through the oceans [aside from the fact that it would violate the 2nd Law], the ARGO 3,300 buoy network would have detected it.
But ARGO shows no rising deep ocean heating. So, who to believe? The real world? Or alarmist speculation claiming — with zero empirical, measurable evidence — that hidden heat is collecting in the deep ocean? Tell your pal: put up your proof, or shut up.
ARGO
[Don’t let him say that ARGO data is no good. Even after ‘readjustment’, ARGO cannot locate any supposed deep ocean heating.]
Here is another chart by Bill Illis, showing the natural warming since the LIA. The supposed human component is just not there.
The planet has been warming at the same rate since the LIA. There has been NO acceleration in global warming [which has, in fact, stopped for the past 17 years].
Warming has not “paused”, either. To pause, it would have to resume. But warming has stopped as of about 1997, contrary to every alarmist prediction ever made, and despite the fact that [harmless, beneficial] CO2 continues to rise, greatly benefitting the biosphere.
They were completely wrong, all of them. Now, all they have left is bluster.
Jeff Mitchell says:
September 29, 2013 at 12:19 am
“I don’t know if this has been posted yet, but this article in the Daily Mail seems to treat the report as gospel and tells of this weatherman who is breaking down because he believes the trash they are spreading.”
Best part is, if he refuses to fly in the future and takes the car instead, he will be using MORE fuel.
henry@Steve
I have tried to make things clearer for people who have problems understanding how the GH effect really works in the atmosphere.
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2011/08/11/the-greenhouse-effect-and-the-principle-of-re-radiation-11-aug-2011/
@richardscourtney says: September 28, 2013 at 2:24 pm
@dbstealey says: September 29, 2013 at 3:02 am
If heat was traveling downward through the oceans [aside from the fact that it would violate the 2nd Law], the ARGO 3,300 buoy network would have detected it.
=========================================================================
Thank you guys. Pretty much what I thought to be the case. There has to have been some detection of temps rising and then falling – and as dbstealey notes, rising again. The assertion that the heat is hiding in the deep oceans is preposterous, and only serves to indicate just how desperate those who follow “the cause” have become.
Regardless, as many have pointed out, governments and media press on regardless. The IPCC could have blamed whatever on whoever and it would be accepted as further proof of the forthcoming EcoApocalypse.
We can all do our bit. I’ve nagged two friends who were committed warmers with even less knowledge o climate than I (I have tried to educate myself, reading Lamb, Montford’s books, Ian Plimer’s book, Chill by Peter Taylor and so on), and have suggested them that to take a position on something you know nothing about is not a good thing. One is turning, and the other just starting to do so.
We can all do our bit.
It has often been claimed that many earlier temperature records, before satellites kept them honest, were adjusted by making the early years colder and the recent years warmer.
It seems to me that any type of modelling that uses such records for either calibration or verification would run into problems that could not be reconciled.
Maybe some part of this reasoning influences the common use by the IPCC of records later than 1950; and maybe it as explanation for the poor fit of some models. Is this part of a reason why GCMs run hot?
If there is a better, less adjusted temperature record, then it should be used for calibration of proxies for temperature. In turn, this should affect the visibility of features such as the MWP and LIA.
So, much as I hate beating a drum, over and over, should there not be much more analysis of the GISSs of this world? To my knowledge, adjustments such as TOBS are applied in many cases when there is alternative evidence that it is inapplicable.
Seems to me that even before 1950 there were appreciable amounts of CO2 going into the air. People tend to require a minimum amount of heating, like from burning dung or twigs or other biomass. I’d expect CO2 to be part-related to global population pre-1950. It follows that when the IPCC uses “pre-industrial” for calculating ECS, they don’t have a good basis for setting a pre-industrial CO2 level.
Henry@Geoff Sherrington
try looking at the average change in temperature per annum , over time, especially maximum temperatures
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/02/21/henrys-pool-tables-on-global-warmingcooling/
– – – – – – –
Dodgy Geezer,
Hey, thanks for the comment.
I do not disagree with your view of the IPCC situation.
You ask me if you captured what I meant? It is, at that level. But that level of view prompts more questions about why. I am trying to look at more fundamental levels.
When some IPCC Bureau intellectuals choose to act irrationally, I ask why. And I keep asking why until I see if there is(are) premise(s) they start with. Do they start with endorsement of one of the main philosophical systems that historically have given handy justifications for broad irrationality in our culture for the last 100 or so years?
It is a philosophical detection case.
To me the suspects of the IPCC’s irrational cause(s) / premise(s) are the usual gang of philosophical suspects . . . as I indicated in my comment to JC.
John
About all this supposed heat hidden in the oceans, all poised to belch forth and incinerate us, I just don’t get it. Don’t the global warming computer models incorporate earthly heat sinks over long periods of time .. I know for certain that nuclear plant computer modellers model have to account for all heat sinks when they model the containment building pressure rise following a pipe break. Perhaps the global modellers do not model heat sinks, as that would make their long term atmospheric projections look hotter?
If we had Argo-types probes all over the land masses measuring average land temperatures down six feet below the surface, wouldn’t they also show a slow and steady march upwards over a century, commensurate with the global rise in temperature? No one would be surprised or alarmed by this, that is what the ground temperature profile would be expected to do if the air temperature was getting slightly warmer. This increased ground temperature would just be an artifact of the atmospheric temperature rise. It would represent a tremendous amount of “heat” that would also be “missing” but would be no danger of suddenly reappearing other than maybe to affect the onset of colder winter temperatures slightly. To me the land and oceans are just big heat sinks that get a little bit warmer as global temperatures slowly rise, how can the global warmists complain that the heat should have gone into the atmosphere instead, and how can they say it will suddenly appear it if took a long time to accumulate in the first place?
Here is another version of the Ocean Temperatures chart which now has the proper perspective on the X-axis (showing the 3.25 temp increase predicted by the IPCC in the year 2100 – although the SPM didn’t use this number, it is what the climate models predicted in both AR4 and AR5).
http://s21.postimg.org/6h0l0crzr/IPCC_Prediction_and_Ocean_Temps_L_2100.png
Repost this whenever the pro-warmers bring up the ocean heat accumulation / temperature increase.
Steve,
Your friend (and the IPCC) have put themselves into checkmate with this admission.
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that the heat has somehow sequestered itself into the deep oceans, escaping detection by the argo buoys, as improbable as this may sound.
Because the specific heat of the ocean is hundreds of times greater than air, the “missing” heat would raise the temperature only by the tiniest amount – a few hundredths of a degree. The original heat has therefore been degraded. As professor Cox has described it in one of his science programs, the heat has been degraded from a useful, concentrated form, to a dilute form.
What he meant, was that entropy has increased, and no useful work can be done. If heat is being sequestered in this way, such that a potential temperature rise of 1c has been turned into a rise of 1 hundredth of a degree, that potential 1c rise is gone for good. There is no way that the hundredth of a degree rise can “come up out of the oceans someday” to create a future 1c rise. That would be a direct violation of both the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
Well no wonder the heat is missing. Take a gallon of water, no make that 30 gallons of water. Make sure it’s cold. Put a thermometer in it and take its temperature. Now get an eye dropper of boiling hot water. Place one drop on the surface and hope it sinks. After a bit of windblown mixing, measure the temperature of the tank water again. Go screaming into the night saying that the tank of water has warmed catastrophically and we are all going to die!!!!!
Idiots.
Vince Causey:
re your answer to Steve at September 29, 2013 at 8:23 am
You are right but most people will give a ‘glazed look’ as soon as you start to mention thermodynamic laws. So, I respectfully suggest your point should be explained this way.
It takes 1200 times more heat to raise the oceans by 1degree than it does to raise the air by 1 degree. So, if the heat of 6 degrees air temperature goes into the oceans, then the oceans will warm by 0.006 degrees. This is much too small a temperature rise to make the oceans as warm as the air. Hot things warm colder things. How will the heat get back to the air?
Richard
dbstealey says:
September 29, 2013 at 3:02 am
Steve,
If heat was traveling downward through the oceans [aside from the fact that it would violate the 2nd Law]
Explain how heat travelling down this gradient would violate the second law.
In fact such transfer would be required!
http://tinyurl.com/ocanmdg
Heat does not travel from colder to warmer, rather, from warmer to colder areas.
Now, I know there are methods of heat transport that rely on conduction and related mechanisms. But the whole idea of hidden heat hiding in the deep oceans is a bunch of baseless nonsense. It is just more “Say Anything”, trying to explain away the lack of any testable, measurable evidence for AGW.
Believe it if you want, but ARGO disagrees; the Real World disagrees.
Phil.
Explain how heat travelling down this gradient would violate the second law.
In fact such transfer would be required!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yes, if one ignores that whole warm water being less dense and rising thing….
davidmhoffer says:
September 29, 2013 at 11:00 am
Phil.
Explain how heat travelling down this gradient would violate the second law.
In fact such transfer would be required!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well yes, if one ignores that whole warm water being less dense and rising thing….
Which has nothing to do with the second law!
Conduction down the gradient is allowed by the second law and wouldn’t be impacted by density considerations since the shallower water would always be warmer than the deep by that mechanism.
The GHE (Greenhouse Effect) doesn’t “heat” anything, it slows the cooling of the surface (mostly ocean) that’s been heated by the sun. The surface (a grey body) radiates based on its temperature but its net heat loss via radiant transfer equals its radiation minus the radiation it receives from above. Increasing the radiation from above (GHE) decreases the amount of heat lost via radiant heat transfer. Theoretically this induces an imbalance which requires the surface to increase in temperature in order to radiate more heat, but the heat could also conceivable flow from the surface to the subsurface (deep ocean) where for all practicable purposes would be gone forever since the deep ocean has a massive heat capacity and could easily absorb the 4 Hiroshima bombs per second for millennia without a noticeable change in temperature. Of course, that’s merely one conceivable outcome; another is the decrease in radiant heat loss increases evaporation that increases cloud cover that decreases heating from the sun. Personally, I like the emergent phenomena timing change hypothesis, but it’s likely that it’s a combination of all these and not just one.
JohnWho says:
September 28, 2013 at 7:03 am
Uh, it looks like parts of the MSM are waking up:
“U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?_r=0
————————————————————————————————————–
The comment section for this article is closed after 518 comments. Note that almost all of the ‘reader,s pick’ and the ‘NYT pick’ are comments that support the IPCC viewpoint.
Phil.;
Which has nothing to do with the second law!
Conduction down the gradient is allowed by the second law and wouldn’t be impacted by density considerations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh puhleeez! You know very well what I meant. Warm water rises which makes sequestering significant amounts of heat at depth impossible. LW from CO2 is fully absorbed in the first few microns of water. Sunlight penetrates to 100 meters, and is measured in the hundreds of w/m2, not the paltry 3.7 w/m2 from CO2 doubling, and yet cannot warm the depths. dbstealey may have been right for the wrong reason, but he was right, and you’ve been hanging around here long enough to know that. If you want to correct someone’s assertion, by all means, but don’t do it in such a fashion as to mislead others.
Re the ongoing discussion about heat hiding in the oceans I would just like to point out there is a heat source below the oceans called the core with the mantle and crust effectively acting as insulators There is a thermal gradient of about 2000 K over 20 – 100 km to the ocean deeps which are 4 C. This may complicate any simple model allowing for only heat to be transferred to the oceans from the surface.
At the press conference to launch the SPM a reporter was told in answer to his question about the hiatus that “you cannot draw conclusions about climate trends in any period less than 30 years”. So why is he (and the IPCC) worried about the 18 years of warming from 1979 to 1998?
So, the ocean eats global warming……ok……..so why did we have that 18 year warming trend? Was the ocean delinquent in it’s duties?? Why have there been warming trends at all?
The way the warmanistas talk, apparently the oceans are Willis’ great “thermostat” that moderates global temps.
Crisis diverted!
peter says:
September 28, 2013 at 7:10 am
Have a look at this video clip of a lecture (36mins) given a couple of years ago by Prof. Bob Carter. It’s very easy for a layman like me to understand, and it clearly shows via empirical data that the Holocene Climatic Optimum is not unusual geologically. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfMM3bVbhQ
Many thanks to the commentators who have explained the concepts eloquently. Much appreciated.
Steve
rtj1211 says:
September 28, 2013 at 11:20 am
Go read Michael Mann in the UK Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/28/ipcc-climate-change-deniers
———————————————————————————————————–
What a weasel the Mann is. Early in his article he feels the need to disparage Curry and Lomborg. His entire premise is “trust none but us. We will lead the Way.”. I presume that Pitthewelder is the Mann, himself. All of ‘Pitts’ comments are negative based.
davidmhoffer says:
September 29, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Phil.;
Which has nothing to do with the second law!
Conduction down the gradient is allowed by the second law and wouldn’t be impacted by density considerations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Oh puhleeez! You know very well what I meant. Warm water rises which makes sequestering significant amounts of heat at depth impossible.
No I didn’t know what you meant, warm water only rises if the water above is colder, heating from the top is inherently stable (as in the stratosphere). The thermal gradient of the ocean which I showed indicates that conduction from above will occur as will of course radiation heat transfer. Both of which will maintain a steady gradient while doing so. Thermohaline effects and winds will induce convective overturning of course.
LW from CO2 is fully absorbed in the first few microns of water. Sunlight penetrates to 100 meters, and is measured in the hundreds of w/m2, not the paltry 3.7 w/m2 from CO2 doubling, and yet cannot warm the depths. dbstealey may have been right for the wrong reason, but he was right,
No he’s flat out wrong, he said:
“If heat was traveling downward through the oceans [aside from the fact that it would violate the 2nd Law]”
There is no violation of the Second Law due to heat transfer down a gradient.
and you’ve been hanging around here long enough to know that. If you want to correct someone’s assertion, by all means, but don’t do it in such a fashion as to mislead others.
It’s you and stealey who’re attempting to mislead
As usual, Phil. emits a bogus strawman fallacy: I never discussed a “gradient”. But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you. Better luck next time.
The central issue is still the same: does rising CO2 cause global warming?
Answer: No.
At least, nothing measurable. Thus, the alarmist scare is debunked. Again.
Phil.;
Agreed there’s no violation of the 2nd law, but there’s also no way for heat to transit the upper layers of the ocean on their way to the lower layers undetected by the argo buoys. If the heat could in fact skip over the upper layers, physics itself would be broken, not a law or two. If such skipping did occur, the very stability you mentioned would be compromised, and CO2 would be doing what millions of years of sunshine could not, which is substantively warm the lower reaches of the oceans. Beyond that, even if all those things were true (insane to think so, but hey, let’s run with it for a moment) one still has an ocean with 1200 times the heat capacity of the atmosphere, and we ought to be able to measure the difference in temperature in…. a few centuries.
dbstealey says:
September 29, 2013 at 8:41 pm
As usual, Phil. emits a bogus strawman fallacy: I never discussed a “gradient”. But thanx for playing, and Vanna has some lovely parting gifts for you. Better luck next time.
Not a strawman, you stated that heat transport downwards through the ocean violated the Second Law (see below). As I showed the thermal gradient in the ocean is warm at the top and cold at the bottom thus transport from top to bottom is allowed by the Second Law. Implicitly by invoking the Second Law in that way you did discuss a gradient, you just got it wrong!
dbstealey says:
September 29, 2013 at 3:02 am
If heat was traveling downward through the oceans [aside from the fact that it would violate the 2nd Law],
davidmhoffer says:
September 29, 2013 at 9:05 pm
Phil.;
Agreed there’s no violation of the 2nd law, but there’s also no way for heat to transit the upper layers of the ocean on their way to the lower layers undetected by the argo buoys. If the heat could in fact skip over the upper layers, physics itself would be broken, not a law or two.
And it doesn’t, so what’s your problem?
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
I said the Argo buoys Phil. You’ve posted a link to data that starts decades before the Argo project and which consists of highly suspect data which is why the Argo buoys were deployed in the first place.
Phil. is the original Mr Strawman, isn’t he?
davidmhoffer says:
September 29, 2013 at 10:37 pm
I said the Argo buoys Phil. You’ve posted a link to data that starts decades before the Argo project and which consists of highly suspect data which is why the Argo buoys were deployed in the first place.
The recent data in that graph is ARGO data, I wasn’t able to access the Levitus 2012 graph to show that. However there’s no indication in either NOAA or Levitus (2012) that the heat ‘skipped’ over the upper layers and was missed by the ARGO buoys as you assert, so could you explain where you get that idea from?
Phil. says he can’t seem to find ARGO data. Maybe that is because he doesn’t really want to find it: the ARGO data shows conclusively that there is no accelerated ocean warming. In fact, ocean warming semms to have stopped:
ARGO 1
ARGO 2
ARGO 3
ARGO 4
Ocean Heat Content has stopped rising
Oceans are cooling — real time
Whenever there is a discrepancy between models and empirical [real world] evidence, like there is here, the models are wrong. That’s all there is to it, as Prof Richard Feynman has said.
Phil. is arguing models. David Hoffer and I are arguing real world, measured evidence.
Readers can judge for themselves who is right — and who is wrong.
3.7.4 Assessment of Evidence for Accelerations in Sea Level Rise
AR4 concluded that there was “high confidence that the rate of global sea level rise increased from the 19th to the 20th century” but could not be certain as to whether the higher rate since 1993 was reflective of decadal variability or a further increase in the longer-term trend. Since AR4, there has been considerable effort to quantify the level of decadal and multi-decadal variability and to detect acceleration in GMSL and mean sea level at individual tide gauges.
It has been clear for some time that there was a significant increase in the rate of sea level rise in the four oldest records from Northern Europe starting in the early to mid-19th century (Ekman, 1988; Woodworth, 1990, 1999; Mitchum et al., 2010). Estimates of the change in the rate have been computed, either by comparing trends over 100-year intervals for the Stockholm site (Ekman,
1988; Woodworth, 1990), or by fitting a quadratic term to all the long records starting before 1850
(Woodworth, 1990, 1999). The results are consistent and indicate a significant acceleration that started in the early to mid-19th century (Woodworth, 1990, 1999), although some have argued it may have started in the late 1700s (Jevrejeva et al., 2008). The increase in the rate of sea level rise at Stockholm (the longest record that extends past 1900) has been based on differencing 100-year trends from 1774–1884 and 1885–1985.
The estimated change is 1.0 [0.7 to 1.3] mm yr–1 per century (1 standard error, as calculated by Woodworth, 1990).
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5_WGI-12Doc2b_FinalDraft_Chapter03.pdf
The title suggests in its words that there will be a continuous acceleration in sea level rise also for the future. Prof Rahmstorf writes: “es wird jetzt ein erheblich rascherer Anstieg erwartet (28-98 cm bis 2100). Das liegt um über 50% über den alten Projektionen (18-59 cm), wenn man gleiche Emissionsszenarien und Zeitspannen vergleicht.“
http://www.scilogs.de/wblogs/blog/klimalounge/klimadaten/2013-09-27/der-neue-ipcc-klimabericht
This projection of time span in the past ignores some known facts. Temperatures as well as the physical coupled sea level from the water properties are based on time periods per example the ~900 year time period with Little Ice Age ~450 years ago. We are now in the phase of a maximum of this time period. It is evident that the sea level rising trend in the last 15 years have decreased because of the pause in global warming.
http://www.volker-doormann.org/images/sealevel_vs_temp.gif
There are superimposed some sea level data and global temperatures. There is no reason that the sea level has an accelerations in sea level rise today.
Have fun.
V.
This gif shows conclusively that the sea level at La Jolla, California, has not changed in a century.
Who should we believe? The planet? Or Phil.?
Because they cannot both be right.