Not only is the warming hiding in the ocean, it’s hiding in the future too

From the Carnegie Institution and the mind of Ken Caldeira, comes this “back to the future” style impossible to verify prediction (at least impossible now). Of course, in model-world and Hollywood, anything is provable possible.

backtothefuture_warming1

Climate change: Fast out of the gate, slow to the finish the gate

Washington, D.C.— A great deal of research has focused on the amount of global warming resulting from increased greenhouse gas concentrations. But there has been relatively little study of the pace of the change following these increases. A new study by Carnegie’s Ken Caldeira and Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures concludes that about half of the warming occurs within the first 10 years after an instantaneous step increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but about one-quarter of the warming occurs more than a century after the step increase. Their work is published in Environmental Research Letters.

The study was the result of an unusual collaboration of a climate scientist, Ken Caldeira, who contributed to the recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report, and Nathan Myhrvold, the founder and CEO of a technology corporation, Intellectual Ventures LLC. It is the third paper on which they have collaborated

The study brings together results from the majority of the world’s leading climate models. Caldeira and Myhrvold analyzed more than 50 climate simulations, which were performed using 20 different climate models for the Climate Model Intercomparison Project, Phase 5 (CMIP5).

They found a fairly high degree of consensus on the general character of the pace of climate change. In response to an instantaneous increase in greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is fast out of the starting gate but then slows down, and takes a long time to approach the finish line.

There is substantial quantitative disagreement among climate models, however. For example, one model reaches 38 percent of the maximum warming in the first decade after a step increase in CO2 concentration, while another model reaches 61 percent of the maximum warming in this time period. Similarly, one model reaches only 60 percent of maximum warming in the first century after the step increase, while another achieves 86 percent of maximum warming during this interval.

There is also substantial uncertainty in the ultimate amount of warming that would result from any given increase in atmospheric CO2 content. The most sensitive model predicts more than twice as much warming as the least-sensitive model.

Uncertainty in the amount of warming combines with uncertainty in the pace of warming. From an instantaneous doubling of atmospheric CO2 content from the pre-industrial base level, some models would project 2°C (3.6°F) of global warming in less than a decade while others would project that it would take more than a century to achieve that much warming.

“While there is substantial uncertainty in both the pace of change and the ultimate amounts of warming following an increase in greenhouse gas concentration,” Caldeira said, “there is little uncertainty in the basic outlook. If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations with emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas, the Earth will continue to get hotter. If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”

###

The authors acknowledge the World Climate Research Program’s Working Group on Coupled Modeling, which is responsible for CMIP.

About these ads

122 thoughts on “Not only is the warming hiding in the ocean, it’s hiding in the future too

  1. This is beyond moving the goalpost. This is like when two 5 yo kids play cards and the one who’s dealing makes up the rules as they go in order for him/her to win every time.

  2. They are becoming increasingly desperate in their search for the missing heat. We had a warm spring in Australia, perhaps the heat in on holiday at Bondi Beach. Well, it makes about as much sense as the above posting.

  3. The article provides so little information that nothing can be made of it. Are they modeling the effect of CO2 alone? Have the done the “forcings and feedbacks” calculations involving clouds, water vapor, and other possible negative feedbacks? How does the logarithmic curve for CO2 affect matters? And on and on.

    I really find this sort of thing offensive. All they are doing is playing with models. They should say that. But, No, they claim that they have learned something about CO2 and global warming. Nonsense.

  4. Do you know where the “90% of the warming is going into the oceans” came from?

    It came from Church and White 2011 and is only the percentage of the Red and Purple areas versus the Red, Purple and Green areas in this chart. Completely ignoring the 78% of the other areas in the chart. In other words, pure spin designed to mislead everyone.

    Paper here.

    http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/phys/2012-0229-200953/2011GL048794.pdf

    The “line” went over so well with the followers that the rest of the climate science community decided to join in on the deception.

  5. It used to be the rapidness of the warming that made global warming so devastating to species that couldn’t adapt quickly enough.

    So, it’s not as bad as we thought?

  6. There is substantial quantitative disagreement among climate models, however. For example, one model reaches 38 percent of the maximum warming in the first decade after a step increase in CO2 concentration, while another model reaches 61 percent of the maximum warming in this time period. …

    There is also substantial uncertainty in the ultimate amount of warming that would result from any given increase in atmospheric CO2 content.

    Well, I think they proved that the modelers have quite a ways to go before we should put much faith in models’ output.

  7. “If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.””

    And kill hundreds of millions in the process. Nice they wish for that, or is that their desire?

  8. BTW, if the name is familiar:

    http://www.intellectualventures.com/index.php/about/leadership/nathan-myhrvold says in part:

    Nathan Myhrvold founded Intellectual Ventures after retiring from his position as chief strategist and chief technology officer of Microsoft Corporation. At Intellectual Ventures, Myhrvold is focused on a variety of business interests relating to the funding, creation and commercialization of inventions.

    http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/30/intellectual-ventures-nathan-myhrvold-defends-patent-trolling/ says in part:

    Intellectual Ventures’ CEO and founder Nathan Myhrvold, who previously spent some 14 years at Microsoft Research, took the stage here at D10, and as predicted, his interview with Walt Mossberg was quite the invigorating one. You may know the man and his company for its vicious patent trolling — or, what appears to be patent trolling. In essence, a lot of its business comes from acquiring patent portfolios, and then licensing and / or suing companies to “enforce” them. Naturally, Nathan has a radically different perspective than most sane individuals on the matter, insisting that the system isn’t necessarily broken, and that “making money from enforcing patents is no more wrong than investing in preferred stock.”

    http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100217/1853298215.shtml says in part:

    Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures Using Over 1,000 Shell Companies To Hide Patent Shakedown

    from the incredibly-lame dept

    It’s no secret that we think Nathan Myhrvold’s Intellectual Ventures is a dangerous, innovation harming monstrosity. The company used a bait and switch scheme to get a bunch of big tech companies to fund it, not realizing that they were then going to be targets of his shakedown system. Basically, IV buys up (or in some cases, applies for) tons of patents, and then demands huge cash outlays from those same companies (often hundreds of millions of dollars) for a combined promise not to sue over those patents and (here’s the sneaky bit) a bit of a pyramid scheme, where those in early supposedly get a cut of later deals. Of course, to just talk to IV requires strict NDAs, so the details of these deals are kept under wraps and only leaked out anonymously. But the hundreds of millions of dollars going towards this sort of trolling behavior, rather than any actual innovation in the marketplace can be seen on various financial filings (you can’t hide hundreds of millions of dollars in payments that easily).

    Now, for years, Myhrvold tried to avoid the term “patent troll,” by claiming that IV had never actually sued anyone. Two years ago, though, it seemed clear that the company was on the verge of breaking out the lawsuits. However, the company still hasn’t been directly linked to a lawsuit. Late last year, though, some eagle-eyed reporters noticed that IV patents were showing up in lawsuits, but those lawsuits were from different companies. Reading between the lines, it became clear that IV had decided to protect its brand name by getting other companies or creating those companies itself, giving the patent to those other companies that no one had ever heard of, and having them sue. This is a very common practice among patent hoarders. They set up shell companies for their lawsuits, that often make it difficult to track back who actually owns what patents. It’s all a shell game to extort more money.

  9. ntesdorf says:
    “perhaps the heat in on holiday at Bondi Beach. ”

    Well it certainly hasn’t made it into the water down here yet. Still very much “spanner” water !

    It’s nice though, once you go numb !!!

  10. There is substantial quantitative disagreement among climate models….
    no there isn’t…they are all wrong

  11. There is substantial quantitative disagreement among climate models…
    no there isn’t….and they are all wrong

  12. If I was a reviewer, and I was feeling vindictive, I would then ask them how they might go about calculating one of those various “climate sensitivities” that are bandied about like they might mean something in the real world.

  13. Why can’t any one fess up to the fact that the human induced global warming is being caused by our population increase and land use changes. What do you think miles and miles of brick homes, all radiating heat, with paved roads, will do to temperatures? The only solution is to raze all the cities and suburbs and let all that land return to it’s natural state. Guess that won’t happen but we can save the planet by paying more money to our governments.

  14. about half of the warming occurs within the first 10 years after an instantaneous step increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration, but about one-quarter of the warming occurs more than a century after the step increase.

    There’s that reversible thermodynamic process again.

  15. Climate models cannot correctly HIND-cast historic temperatures. Their guesses about the future are, thus, pure, UNSUPPORTED, CONJECTURE.

    “…climate models show no skill whatsoever at hindcasting — which means climate models FAIL, for they are not realistic, not even for the last few decades.” (Climate Models Fail, Bob Tisdale (2013) at 14)

    “That the models cannot hindcast the early (1914-1945) rise in global surface temperatures shows that global surface temperatures can warm due to causes other than the forcings (human and natural) programmed into the climate models.” (Ibid at 151.)

    *******************************************

    Read your doom, IPCC:

    CO2 UP — TEMPERATURE DOWN.

    ******************************************

    Re: “… about one-quarter of the warming occurs more than a century after the step increase… .” (from the above model-centric Introduction to Science report that got a grade of “F”)

    There is no evidence for this, only conjecture that flies in the face of what is known about CO2 LAGGING TEMPERATURE INCREASES — by a quarter cycle.

    This is blatant damage control v. a v. Dr. Murry Salby (and others)’s findings. Apparently, the April 18, 2013 Hamburg lecture posted on youtube HIT THE TARGET. KA-POW! Thus, they bring in the “quarter” — an amateurish attempt to confuse the ignorant public (exactly the same as marketing brand confusion by naming one’s product something similar-but-not-the-same to TRICK THE PUBLIC INTO BUYING ONE’S PRODUCT).

    And, just to put the TRUTH out there, once again, here is:
    Dr. Murry Salby explaining what data
    (not programmer-forced models) say about CO2 being
    closely correlated with temperature
    delayed by a quarter cycle.

  16. “The only solution is to raze all the cities and suburbs and let all that land return to it’s natural state.”

    No, that’s silly. The problem is quite obviously McDonald’s. As a matter of feeding cattle there are untold acres of land that are routinely laid bare. Both by direct grazing and harvesting during the hottest portions of the year. This reduces albedo and as well as the metabolic activity of plants to capture energy from the sun. Some people, just as strangely as arguing against concrete, argue that we should strictly curtail the use of plant food. When the obvious conclusion is that we need to enact bovine-taxes and create beef-credit exchanges.

    Though, if we’re interested in a more targeted solution we can combat both the direct destruction of the planet as well as the two-fer that ensues from obesity by consideration of sin-taxes levied McDonald’s as well as all other convenient food outlets that sell directly to consumers. This option is desirable in that it develops a narrowly tailored planetary use-tax. This mechanism is compassionately progressive in that the impoverished hardly consume food products to begin with. The less impoverished are able to self-tailor their asceticism to offset their planetary burdens. And the rich can purchase indulgences against their profligacy to mitigate the harm they cause by funding vegetarian outreach and starvation education programs.

  17. @ Ric Werme (re: yours at 5:48pm) Ah, HA! Then that use of the “quarter” term to confuse was highly likely to be intentional. What a scumbag.

  18. MrX
    “This is like when two 5 yo kids play cards and the one who’s dealing makes up the rules as they go in order for him/her to win every time”.

    Yeah and my brother had a technique where he would take first position sitting opposite the window, and I would sit in front of the window with my back to it; I always wondered why he would often look out the window behind me until I noticed you could see the reflection of the faces of my cards in the window behind me.

  19. Yeah, JQuip (heh, and, NOT so “heh,” too) — nice wit — and in the Philippines (?) you can name your restaurant “MacJoy’s” and confuse the public into eating at your place (in trademark infringement case, I think MacJoy got away with it). Call such a strategy: “A Myhrvold.”

  20. As to the study: I don’t think there’s anything either shocking or new here about the basic notion. Given the basic issues involved with heat transfer and the crust, this is entirely expected to some degree. Nothing more than a basic logarithm when approaching or departing an equilibrium point.

    The difference in the curve between models doesn’t really speak to this however. As a wide variety in the change over time for ‘all causes’ is not the same as a wide variety between them for a specific cause. That said, if the model have such a large disagreement amongst themselves about the basic grey-body considerations of the Earth is a rather strong demonstration of at least one of the following:

    a) Climate guys have no clue what’s going on.
    b) Climate guys aren’t discarding the absurdly wrong models.

  21. And, Thingodonta, if your big brother turned out to be as decent a person as you are (per your WUWT posts), then, he has paid for that many times over in Big-sibling Guilt; I know — I have it myself. There’s a pretty good cure, though, (I say this in case any other eldest kids might find this helpful): say to yourself, “You were just a little kid, too.” (Repeat) — It works, sorta… .

  22. Since when is a comparison of model variations a “study” of anything other than variation in model programming and parameter selection?

    So they found that a step function in a setting to a computer program that iterates has a long tail of ‘feedback’ as the step function slowly decays through the iterations. OK….
    For n=1 to 100
    do
    HeatAddedYear(n+1)=0.98*HeatAddedYear(n);
    doend

    Something like that is somewhere in the code. Thanks for pointing it out. A source listing with the line in question in bold would have been more effective.

    What has it to do with actual weather, climate, or any reality? Nothing at all. Just a choice by some programmer. And what they found is that some folk used 0.98, while other used 0.97 and some used 0.95 and…

    And they call themselves scientists…

  23. It is obvious that the heat is being transported back and forth via a wormhole to a parallel universe

  24. Well, goodness me. This means that there are at least two poles in the feedback equations governing the response to a step increase in CO2. Who would have thought that something so simple as the earth would stretch to a second order equation????!!!!

  25. From the description this sounds like a public opinion poll conducted from a population of climate models. I can hardly wait for the next study to see how many of them can tell the difference between Whizzo Butter and a dead crab.

  26. “… heat is being transported back and forth via a wormhole …”

    Only when nRT/P >= 88 mph. Otherwise it’s Libyan terrorists all the way down.

  27. The IPCC fools have truly backed themselves into a corner from which there is no escape. There is no heat hiding in the oceans. Down welling LWIR slowing the cooling of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool is a physical impossibility.

    Back in 2011 Willis here at WUWT claimed that based on IR emissivity of liquid water it should absorb IR at the same frequency range and this could slow its cooling rate. However, I showed by empirical experiment that incident IR does not penetrate the skin evaporation layer of liquid water and has no significant effect on the cooling rate of water below this. If a film of LDPE plastic is floated on the surface of the test samples, allowing radiative and conductive exchange while blocking evaporation, then incident IR does slow the cooling rate. The original 2011 experiment can be seen here –

    A cleaner version for other readers to build and run themselves can be seen here –

    Basically the claims of climate pseudo scientists that the oceans would “freeze over” without downwelling LWIR are pure BS. Their further claims that missing heat has entered the oceans via LWIR are simply more of the same, only fresher and still steaming.

    This is but one of the critical mistakes in both the GHE and AGW hypotheses. The mistake that invalidates both hypotheses is that in the “basic physics” of the “settled science” the pseudo scientists failed to increase the speed of tropospheric convective circulation for increasing concentrations of radiative gases. This circulation governs the speed of mechanical energy transport from the surface. This critical error is recorded for all time on the Internet. It cannot be erased. A doubling of CO2 will not create 1.2C of warming. The NET effect of radiative gases in our atmosphere is cooling at all concentrations above 0.0ppm.

    AGW is a physical impossibility, but there is a real carbon catastrophe coming. The reputations of every pseudo scientist, activist, journalist or politician that sought to promote or profit by this inane hoax are about to be reduced to ashes. The same is true for the UN and the EUSSR parliament.

  28. Are they trying to get us to wait 100 years?

    Why are any of us waiting at all? Haven’t we waited enough? When are we going to pull the plug on this con and haul these animals into a court room set up specially for the purpose? [Oh, and humble apologies to all animals.]

  29. Actually there is evidence AGAINST any missing heat. N.G. Loeb et al, Nature Geoscience 2012, DOI: 10.1038/NGEO1375 find that the heat uptake by the oceans as measured by ARGO and earlier ship bathythermometers is pretty much exactly equal to the imbalance in outgoing radiation as measured by satellites over the past 20 years. So missing heat will not only need to be missing, it may even violate the First Law of Thermodynamics, having materialized wraithlike from nothing.

    Also very interesting is that the measureed imbalance is only 0.5 watt/square-meter, far less than the computed 2.3 watt/square-meter we are supposed to have jacked into the atmosphere. This means that future atmospheric global warming from this imbalance will be about 0.4 deg C if the climate sensitivity is 3 degrees for doubling (3.7 watt/square-meter) or 0.1 deg C if the sensitivity is 1 degree for doubling. I would bet on the latter.

    Ah, look at what you can learn by just looking at the data without any dramatic rescue expedition for the models.

  30. Given the various suggestions floating about regarding large scale geoengineering projects to cool the climate would it not be prudent to commence a UN committee to eliminate the Moon. It has been shown that in the long-term equilibrium the strength of the thermohaline circulation in models depends on the turbulent mixing coefficient (Bryan, F.1987), and that the energy required for this turbulent mixing comes to a large extent from the Moon via tidal currents (Wunsch, C. 2000).

    http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/thc_fact_sheet.html

    This could be enough to shut the THC down and initiate global cooling?
    Just a thought.
    /sarc

  31. “If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”

    Check! Well, at least the smokestacks. Most newer power stations vent their flue gases though the cooling towers.

    :-)

  32. Contrary to Anthony Watts’s claim the IPCC climate models do not make predictions. They do make projections. Unlike a prediction, a projection makes no falsifiable claim.

  33. This was paid for by a company called “Intellectual Ventures” sounds like an evil oil company to me.
    Even if they aren’t an evil oil company the idea of comparing models to models make no sense.
    As a kid I had model airplanes, by studying them it would be easy to to conclude that no airplanes are longer than 12 inches.

  34. This is a great piece of research. Tell them we’ll pay them in the future for it. Maybe they can use their models to predict when the check’s coming.

  35. Is the notion of drawn-out response to forcing new to anyone? This is decades-old understanding, and has been a feature of many conversations on this site. There has always been uncertainty about the temporal evolution of climate change. Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity (the so-called Charney sensitivity) is reckoned to be the response to warming after 30 or 40 years or longer, owing to the slow feedbacks of the deeper ocean. (It does not include longer processes like melting ice sheets and poleward migration of flora species, which produces additional surface temperature change on the scale of centuries to milennia) There is a spread amongst models in ECS response time, some faster, some slower. In virtually all models, most of the warming poccurs in the first 30 – 40 years. There have been plenty of papers pointing out longevity of various response times, eg:

    The timescale for reaching equilibrium is a few decades to centuries and increases strongly with sensitivity

    http://www.image.ucar.edu/idag/Papers/PapersIDAGsubtask1.3/Knutti_nature08.pdf (2008)

    Papers that attempt to take into account more feedbacks have similar values for the short-term, and, obviously, longer values for the long-term, eg;

    How long does it take to reach equilibrium temperature with specified GHG change? Response is slowed by ocean thermal inertia and th e time needed for ice sheets to disintegrate. Ocean-caused delay is estimated in Fig.(S7) using a coupled atmosphere-ocean model. One-third of the response occurs in the first few years, in part because of rapid response over land,one-half in ~25 years, three-quarters in 250 years, and nearly full response in a millennium.

    http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0804/0804.1126.pdf (2008)

    This new study compares different model types (1 dimensional, 2-box, state of the art GCMS) and quantifies the spread for ‘fast-feedback’ ECS. The response times to different feedabcksare not linear (so be wary of drawing conclusions thus). The focus and results aren’t novel to anyone who is conversant with climate modeling, but the quantification is a useful frame for future study, which the paper recommends.

    I don’t see anything majorly new here. Just the climate science community critiquing models in order to improve them – business as usual.

  36. Why do we still call them smokestacks when there is no longer any smoke except in photo shopped pictures?

  37. Seems to me that there is some simple physics being overlooked here. The thermal time constant (for surface temperatures) of the oceans is somewhere near a dozen years and three time constants will get about 95% compliance with step change conditions.

  38. So they ran 50 simulations using 20 different “leading” climate models then they wrote this up as a study as though it was actually relevant to something.

    No data was collected or analyzed. Exactly what does this have to do with science?

  39. “The study brings together results from the majority of the world’s leading climate models. Caldeira and Myhrvold analyzed more than 50 climate simulations, which were performed using 20 different climate models…”

    Climate models, climate simulations and more climate models. I think the past warming trend might have been from all the CPU cycles used to generate models and simulations and now study the simulations of the models modeling the simulators. The “consensus” came from studying the studies. I think something is getting lost, like, oh, um, maybe studying the CLIMATE?

  40. Good on Caldeira for lecturing us about smoke stacks and tail pipes. I’m sure that he made the point to his co-researcher, Nathan Myhrvold. You know, the guy with the mansion on the lake with the private pool, the private dock, and, I kid you not, a life size replica of a T-Rex:

    The guy has the carbon footprint of a small town.

  41. In a word… “garbage”, though it doesn’t sound so bad if you give it a French pronunciation; a long drawn-out second syllable.

    More effin’ models!

  42. Ric Werme says: September 30, 2013 at 5:48 pm BTW, if the name is familiar:

    Abuse of the patent system has a long and ignoble (Ig Nobel?) history back to Boulton & Watt at least with those who were merely first seeking to stifle later innovation and development.

  43. Actual temperatures don’t match projections from IPCC 4 models because those models didn’t reflect heat going into the deep ocean. The IPCC 5 models also don’t reflect heat going into the deep ocean, yet we’re 95% certain that they are correct. Huh?

  44. That is what is so amazing. The amount of heat in the oceans does not account for the deficit in the models scenarios, and the rate of change is not increasing as the “its hiding in the oceans” requires for plausability. If the oceans are taking all this heat, why isnt the amount of heat in the increasing at an huge rate? See Figure 1. Where is the rate change to account for this?

    http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/

  45. Simple, all the hot air is actually coming from the CO2 alarmists. The rise in temps corresponds to when they began pontificating.

  46. Bill Illis says:
    September 30, 2013 at 5:40 pm
    Do you know where the “90% of the warming is going into the oceans” came from?

    It came from Church and White 2011
    —————————————————————-

    I thought it was Travesty Trenberth who came up with that …. well at least that half of his brain (sic) that wasn’t pushing roving atmospheric hot spots creating heatwaves at random.

    As someone posted recently, the oceans warm the atmosphere and now, apparently, the atmosphere warms the oceans too. Given that, how is it possible that anyone could doubt runaway global warming ??

    Carbon dioxide creates perpetual motion machine. What can’t it do ?

  47. If you do “science” based on how you feel about it,
    or, as with AGW, pure speculation about human CO2,
    you — will — crash.

    Trust the data.

    Given how utterly CRASHED their models are v. a v. reality,
    it is clear: climate model programmers are suffering from
    Desired Outcome Disorientation

    GCM programmer: “….. DANG! Wrong again!!! ….. uh………. oh, where, oh, where, oh, where is that HEAT??!! It’s not in the troposphere…. it’s not at the North Pole…… it’s not inside a hurricane…… it’s not in outer space……. it’s not in my electric car’s heater……….. (I’d say it’s inside a volcano, but Joe said not to bother, it won’t work)………it must be…………. IN THE DEEP, the very, very, deepest, deep, OCEANS!

    Ah. Saved the day……. uh, oh. We’re coming under heavy fire from WUWT’s big guns………. ooooooo, noooooooo. (picks up phone) “Hi, Mr. Myrh? We need some damage control over here. Can you put out some flak, something about how models are neat and super reliable, and… oh, yeah, be sure to say something about ‘a quarter,’…….. You want HOW MUCH?! … Well, okay. Pouch Hahree said ‘whatever it takes,’……….What? Oh, sure, I’ll e mail you 20 or so model runs, just glance at them, I’ll tell you what to write……. You can say (cough) you ‘studied’ them…….. .

  48. In the future, they’ll be looking for the “missing heat” under miles of glacial ice.

    They won’t recognize the problem after glaciers consume their office windows.

    And still they’ll look.

  49. “If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”

    Wait a second…the Earth has stopped getting hotter and we still build smoke stacks and tail pipes. I guess those clever scientists were so busy looking into their models they forgot to look out the window.

    Seriously. models are nothing more than a mathematical representation of a theory. They help us determine the strength of that theory by crunching a bunch of numbers to get results that we can compare to observations. If the results don’t match, the theory is weak. Right now, the results don’t match.

    Is there a modeler out their who wants to have results that match observations? Cut the assumed sensitivity of CO2 by 66% (or simply remove the positive feedbacks) and add in a 60 year natural, warming/cooling cycle (tied to the PDO) that has a magnitude twice as great as that produced by the current increase in CO2. (If CO2 is producing warming of 0.08/decade, the warm phase will produce warming of 0.24/decade. The cool phase will produce cooling of 0.08/decade, for a net warming of about half a degree/60 year cycle) Next, add in an 800-900 year natural cycle of warming/cooling with a magnitude of about 2 degrees C. (Not sure why it is there, but it is, so add it to the model.) Make the transition from the warm phase to the cool phase sometime in this Century. Don’t forget to taper off the impact of CO2 as concentrations increase, due to its logarithmic impact, and remove the arbitrary aerosol equations found in the current models. You no longer need them to match up with the historical record. Then watch the observations line up with model output decade after decade, until the Holocene ends.

    Of course, this model will not project any significant warming for at least 500 years, so after you publish your results, you will be unemployed. But at least you will have the satisfaction of being correct.

  50. I decided to find out a little bit about our dear Ken Caldeira. Aside from being a former IPCC participant, and doing the obligatory climate science post doc docking at Penn State, it appears Ken old boy does an absolutely first place job at coming up with scientificky analogies. I found out over at:

    http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/09/26/2684021/ken-caldeira-keystone-xl-climate-action/

    that in 2009 Ken Caldeira wrote to Climate Progress to educate us with his views on CO2:
    ‘I compare CO2 emissions to mugging little old ladies…. It is wrong to mug little old ladies and wrong to emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The right target for both mugging little old ladies and carbon dioxide emissions is zero.’
    The moment I completed letting my eyeballs digest the foregoing Caldeiriation I thought to myself, wow, what brilliance! Imagine the CO2 molecule as a little old lady mugger. What could possibly be more appropriate. Think of the scientific similarities between breathing, heating one’s home, and…mugging little old ladies. It’s one of those things that’s just so very obvious that only a true genius could’ve seen it. And, this is why I have complete faith in his prognosis that, while we don’t see CO2 induced warming now, we will see it in the future. It’s simple, there must be a dearth of little old ladies to mug right now. But we’re all getting older, and soon half of the baby boomers will be turning into little old ladies. Then that opportunistic, thuggish CO2 will start the mugging. That’s why they call that hot weather, ‘muggy’. And Ken Caldeira knew it all along! What a mind! What flabbergasting intellect! And, I feel really good now, knowing that the destruction of the world’s economic system is based on something so concrete I never allowed myself to see it before.

  51. “Muggy” — lol, Tom J — great writing.

    Very nice summary, Jim Clarke — you would WIN at the science fair, until…. old man Poucharee stomped all over your laptop (with your great model in it) so his little kid could win with his pathetic tinker toy contraption.

    Rocky Road (LOVE that flavor!) — you are so right. “That’s not ice. That’s just a figment of my imagination… .”

  52. Actual temperatures don’t match projections from IPCC 4 models because those models didn’t reflect heat going into the deep ocean. The IPCC 5 models also don’t reflect heat going into the deep ocean, yet we’re 95% certain that they are correct. Huh?

    The 95% confidence value does not refer to model projections, it’s about anthropogenic contribution to global warming since the middle of last century.

  53. Phil, lol — yes! And the DUMBEST is………….. hm….. so MANY choices….. ol’ mister millions of degrees at the earth’s core Gore? ….. mister “settled science” cook (was it he who gets credit for that one?) …. WELL, ANYWAY. They can all share it with each claiming he (or she) is “the” D.U.M. Best (sssh, don’t tell them what that means — tell them it stands for: Doctor uv Modeling, Best) winner for 2013.

  54. Jquip says:
    September 30, 2013 at 6:31 pm

    Though, if we’re interested in a more targeted solution we can combat both the direct destruction of the planet as well as the two-fer that ensues from obesity by consideration of sin-taxes levied McDonald’s as well as all other convenient food outlets that sell directly to consumers. This option is desirable in that it develops a narrowly tailored planetary use-tax. This mechanism is compassionately progressive in that the impoverished hardly consume food products to begin with. The less impoverished are able to self-tailor their asceticism to offset their planetary burdens. And the rich can purchase indulgences against their profligacy to mitigate the harm they cause by funding vegetarian outreach and starvation education programs.
    ——————————————————————————–

    ……… brilliant.

    I think that the next generation may have a bit of a problem with planetary use-taxes, and that they’re going to make it someone else’s problem.

  55. Bill Illis said,

    Completely ignoring the 78% of the other areas in the chart.

    The energy in the graphic that you showed that is being reflected back into space (ozone and volcanic (cyan)) and the heat energy that radiates back out into space (yellow) shouldn’t be counted as “warming” of the earth.

    Only the warming that is happening in the oceans, the air and the phase change of solids to liquid or liquids to vapor count as energy that is deposited into the earth and causing warming. Of this energy 92% goes into the oceans and only about 2.5% goes into the air that is around us.

    Since the air around us has such a small ability to store heat than water does, if it was the other way around (92% going into the air) we would all be dead now, as the temperature would be 30 degrees warmer (celsius) than it was in 1880.

  56. MJ says:

    The IPCC and related alarmists have acknowledged the lack of global warming over the last 16 years, and they have acknowledged the fact that they can’t agree that the CO2 sensitivity factor used in computer models to predict run-away global warming is the correct factor. All this is admitted in the UN’s IPCC summary report albeit the admission about the disagreement is in a foot note. It should have been in headlines, because it is absolutely the only basis for the hypothesis that CO2 causes significant global warming, a monument of conjecture.

    Instead, the politically driven IPCC summary touts 2 things;

    1) It raised it’s confidence level from 90% sure to 95% sure that CO2 causes global warming!

    2) It also raised the hypothesis that the missing heat in the 16 year “pause” in global warming may be found in the deep ocean. Of course, there are no measurements to show that it’s there, just as there are no measurements to show that the heat is accumulating in the troposphere as a “greenhouse” effect. However, the main-stream media likes the idea because their reputations are endangered, hanging on the proverbial limb.

    I love the following comment posted by MJ.

    MJ says;
    “Sounds like to me the heat is hiding in the models.”

  57. (assuming and hoping you are now sound asleep)

    Good morning, Anthony! #(:))

    For you, our battle-weary hero,

    Sometimes a little perspective can help give us a second wind.

    Take care of yourself. The world needs you.

    Yours with admiration,

    Janice

  58. “If we want the Earth to stop getting hotter, we have to stop building things with smokestacks and tailpipes that emit CO2 into the atmosphere.”

    Hate to say it but someone’s going to have to inform Ken Caldeira he’ll have to take some of those criticisms right to Nature’s (and by complicity, the Earth’s) very own doorstep. Didn’t Nature design us humans with our very own tailpipes? And it’s a good thing it did too because… Ok, I won’t write anything more.

  59. Jai, temperature and heat energy are not one and the same! If someone told me I would get hit by objects at 800 Celsius I would be dead if I was caught in a flow of magma, but unharmed if it was a stream of superheated iron particles from a grinding wheel.
    The models are not working, the Met Office cannot predict the weather due to these models. If I want to know what the weather is going to do today, I look out of the window and consult my weather station, if I want more detail I look at stills from the weather satellite. BBQ summers, mild winters, they could not have got it more wrong if they had tried!
    Heat has not “disappeared” into the oceans, it just cannot happen, the models are wrong, end of!
    The more I read about the opinions of these “experts” the more I realise it is not science it is dogma with a quasi-religious zeal!

  60. The horrible side of this piece of junk science is that it has been ‘published’ . It also wasted resources that could have been used to support some honest research. This aspect of the warmest movement is often overlooked. They are the pseudo science version of the court jesters.

  61. Jim Clarke said ;


    “…the warm phase will produce warming of 0.24/decade. The cool phase will produce cooling of 0.08/decade, for a net warming of about half a degree/60 year cycle) Next, add in an 800-900 year natural cycle of warming/cooling with a magnitude of about 2 degrees C. (Not sure why it is there, but it is, so add it to the model.) Make the transition from the warm phase to the cool phase sometime in this Century.Then watch the observations line up with model output decade after decade, until the Holocene ends.”

    Sounds very interesting got any graphs for that ?

    Got any temperature projections for the next 20 years, or to 2100 or even beyond, when and at what temperature does the curve bottom out ?

  62. How about more explicitly… “the only place concentrated heat can hide in this massive world is in a model or a climatologist’s fantasy” (it’s an entropy thing) After mixing, never to show its face again except remotely in the far insignificant digits of a temperature that we can not even measure or detect that fine. Now I’d agree to that. Wish everyone would stop using such wishy-washy words…. well… like the I.P.C.C.. Trenberth’s “hiding” heat, phooey. Returning one day from its thermal grave, phooey. And if they think they can measure the temperature of the Earth’s entire ocean’s mass to 0.01°C or even 0.1°C as I have read, phooey on that too.

    Bet he wishes he never opened his mouth on that topic. Do these climatologist’s not have to take the courses to understand the real physical world?

  63. Reading this fiction brings up more questions than answers. For example, what do they mean by an “instantaneous step increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration”? I thought the increases in CO2 have been fairly gradual and steady over several decades. I’m not aware of any instantaneous step increases. And if half the warming takes place in the first ten years, why has there been no warming at all for the past 15 years while CO2 continues to increase? Did the old CO2 molecules forget to tell the new guys they had to work for 10 years before they could take a break?

    Just how do CO2 molecules coordinate their timing anyway? Do they take turns? I guess one wakes up the other and says, “I just spent 20 years warming up the atmosphere. Now it’s your turn to spend the next 20 years warming up the deep ocean while I take a siesta.” CO2 seems to possess a kind of devious intelligence capable of orchestrating every evil known to mankind, from generating killer storms to fungi invasions. Maybe we should be looking for ways to appease the CO2 Gods so they will stop sending plagues down upon us. Oh wait, that is what the warmists have been trying to get us to do all along — to sacrifice humans to Gaia.

  64. The poem “The Hound of Heaven” by Francis Thompson, could almost be invoked as a description of the terrified flight of the post-normal scientist, AGW etc,. fleeing from a figurative Karl Popper and the inescapable, relentless law of testing and falsification of scientific hypothesis:

    The AGW scientist fleeing from Karl Popper:

    I FLED Him, down the nights and down the days ;
    I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
    I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways

    Of my own mind ; and in the mist of tears
    I hid from Him, and under running laughter.
    Up vistaed hopes, I sped;
    And shot, precipitated,
    Adown Titanic glooms of chasmed fears.

    From those strong Feet that followed, followed after.
    But with unhurrying chase.
    And unperturbed pace,
    Deliberate speed, majestic instancy,

    They beat — and a Voice beat
    More instant than the Feet —
    ”All ‘things betray thee, who betrayest Me.”

    Francis Thompson (The hound of heaven)

  65. “They found a fairly high degree of consensus on the general character of the pace of climate change. In response to an instantaneous increase in greenhouse gas emissions, climate change is fast out of the starting gate but then slows down, and takes a long time to approach the finish line.” …
    “While there is substantial uncertainty in both the pace of change and the ultimate amounts of warming following an increase in greenhouse gas concentration,” Caldeira said, “there is little uncertainty in the basic outlook”

    They thought they were doing a study on climate but they did a study of group thinking.

    They confuse the degree of variation in the preconceived ideas programmed into the models with scientific “uncertainty” in the results.

    The “high degree of consensus” that goes into the way models are written is the cause of the similarity in “basic outlook”.

    This has NOTHING to do with uncertainty.

  66. Considering the models involved have been proven to be crap all subsequent results can only be more crap.

  67. Mike Borgelt says:

    “So is anyone here dumb enough to invest money with Nathan Myrvold?”

    Let’s hope not. Myrvold is one of those guys who was lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time. He got in on the ground floor at Microsoft, made his multi-millions, and now demonstrates that even with enough money, he cannot produce credible results.

    The public tends to worship luck. In Myrvold’s case, luck is not enough to overcome his model’s failure.

  68. If the heat mostly goes into the oceans and gets hugely diluted thereby, it won’t (much) melt ice or affect the climate, so what’s the worry?

  69. Terry Oldberg says:
    September 30, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    Contrary to Anthony Watts’s claim the IPCC climate models do not make predictions. They do make projections. Unlike a prediction, a projection makes no falsifiable claim.

    If you’re going to play that card, please explain how the models make any actionable claims. In other words, either the models are representative of the real world or they are not. Why should we care if some virtual, exists-only-in-the-imagination-of-the-models world is going to heat up, trip over a tipping point and turn into Venus?

  70. @ Tatonka Chesli, thanks for the Popper mention. I’ll chase down your allusions and mention of Francis Thompson.

    Warming hiding in the future is merely more ADHOCKERY. Adhockery impeaches.

  71. Barry says:

    “The 95% confidence value does not refer to model projections, it’s about anthropogenic contribution to global warming since the middle of last century.”

    In other words: we are sure we are right, but we aren’t sure what we are sure about.

  72. Oh my! Thank you very much – just on first assay! I’m reading Popper’s ‘Open Society’. J. R. R. Tolkien provides me one of the images of ‘society’, that I consider in progressivism/progress from what?

  73. Louis says:

    “Reading this fiction brings up more questions than answers. For example, what do they mean by an “instantaneous step increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration”? I thought the increases in CO2 have been fairly gradual and steady over several decades. I’m not aware of any instantaneous step increases.”

    There was one 65 million years ago when the Chicxulub impact heated the CO2 out of many thousands of cubic kilometers of carbonate rock in a few seconds. Anyone interested in the effect of sudden increases of CO2 should study that interval. However this requires strenuous fieldwork and tedious analysis, research in short, which does not appeal at all to modern post-normal scientists who prefer playing computer games.

  74. If a bunch of warming is released over 100 years after a warming event, when will the extra heat from the end of the Little Ice Age reappear? Have they detected massive volumes of warm water down there? Or did the heat reappear already, in 1976?

  75. We already know the ice core data shows that CO2 concentrations follows the warming (it warms up first, then the CO2 goes up). Since we know CO2 drives warming, we there must conclude that future CO2 levels are transporting the greenhouse effect into the past. Therefore, this is entirely possible.

  76. I’m not sure if the title is tongue-in-cheek, but I think what is meant is that if you take a model and do a step change in CO2 concentration in one time step to the next then one simulation takes 10 (virtual) years to adjust to the new situation and another much longer, although the end state is more or less the same for most models. That doesn’t mean that the heat is hiding in the future.

    However, finding “a fairly high degree of consensus” between models obviously means nothing except that most likely all of them are flawed.

  77. As far as I can see all this is saying that heat is distributed among several compartments with different time constants. Since this is almost inevitable in a system that conatains air, liquid and ice, the whole thing seems completely tivial.

  78. Terry Oldberg says: @ September 30, 2013 at 8:39 pm

    Contrary to Anthony Watts’s claim the IPCC climate models do not make predictions. They do make projections. Unlike a prediction, a projection makes no falsifiable claim.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You keep repeating that in thread after thread after thread and you keep getting told you are WRONG with quotes directly from the IPCC by Richard S. Courtney.

    For those who are new, the models do if/then type ‘projections’ IF there is no change in humanities CO2 output THEN the models PREDICT an increase in temperature of X. Also the IPCC DOES use the actual word prediction and not just the word projection in earlier reports as Courtney has shown on several occasions.

    To add insult to injury it is Ged Davis, Shell Oil Vice President, who WROTE the if/then scenarios for the IPCC.
    You can read them in the climategate e-mail HERE.

  79. More models. Here’s what George E. P. Box said about them:

    “Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful”

    “Remember that all models are wrong; the practical question is how wrong do they have to be to not be useful. ”

    “Since all models are wrong the scientist cannot obtain a “correct” one by excessive elaboration. On the contrary, following William of Occam, he should seek an economical description of natural phenomena. Just as the ability to devise simple but evocative models is the signature of the great scientist so overelaboration and overparameterization is often the mark of mediocrity.
    “One important idea is that science is a means whereby learning is achieved, not by mere theoretical speculation on the one hand, nor by the undirected accumulation of practical facts on the other, but rather by a motivated iteration between theory and practice. “

  80. HURRY!—-HURRY!—–HURRY!


    Order your Double Acting CO2! today!

    Twice the WARMTH of regular CO2!

    Be the first on your block to use Double Acting CO2!


    Pfft! This research has scam as the message, not science.

    I do wonder. Last week a new troll (to me), on WUWT was stating that new research was due any time that would ‘prove’ CO2 as evil and that we would regret our skepticism. He (it?) certainly isn’t worth searching for as neither this research or his message are worth a gnats time.

  81. OK. I’ll ask.

    So, if “step changes” in CO2 are what the models “try to” use to determine/predict/project (got to keep Oldberg happy here), but require several decades to “re-stabilize” before future temperatures are correct ….. How are the current models back-casting the actual slow month-by-month changes in CIO2 that have actually happened?

    Rather, what I read over-and-over again is that the model conditions are “set” from a zero-zero baseline, and the models are run over thousands of iterations to stabilize (apparently to some acceptable and stable worldwide “climate” of simulated ice, simulated ocean currents, simulated air flows and wind flows, global temperatures, and global (preset) cloud albedoes) and preset land-and-ocean detail mapping; then CO2 is “stepped” to a new value and the difference from the previous conditions are plotted. Rinse, wash, repeat for a new trial. Yet we have NEVER been shown that simulated “step 0″ original worldwide global “climate” that is supposedly the baseline for telling us what the “change in climate:’ will be in year +1, year + 2, year + 3, … year + 1000

    However, should not each of the 23 GC Models be able to return to 1890’s actual atmosphere conditions (CO2, assumed air temperature anomalies over the global for 1890, actual global temperatures, assumed arctic and antarctic ice extents, assumed aerosols, and known volcanoes fro 1890 through 2013. Then RUN the actual slow CO2 increase from 1950 through 2013. Show us the result. No “stabilization, no short 10 year run. A single 120 year run against known known volcanoes and known CO2 increases.

    The result has never been plotted. Apparently, this simple long-term test against reality has never been done successfully.

  82. All they may have demonstrated is that model results are all over the place and pretty much useless for predicting … er, projecting anything of value.

    What is the proposed real worldl physical mechanism for such a purported long range delay in the effect of CO2 on any warming?

  83. AndrewmHarding

    The specific heat capacity for sea water is 3,900 joules per kilogram-kelvin
    source: http://www.diracdelta.co.uk/science/source/s/p/specific%20heat%20capacity/source.html#.UksDO2Dn8eE

    The specific heat capacity for air with 60% humidity is 1.04 joules per kilogram-kelvin
    source: http://www.diracdelta.co.uk/science/source/s/p/specific%20heat%20capacity/source.html#.UksDO2Dn8eE

    the reason more heat energy goes into the oceans than the air is because the oceans take more heat to warm and if they are colder then more heat energy goes into them.

  84. ” If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations with emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas, the Earth will continue to get hotter.”

    So the world cannot cool down then???

  85. The weather, the weather, everyone knows about, never does a thing about…….Yes, that warmth is hiding in the oceans causing the Arctic ice to expand. ;-)

  86. jai mitchell says:

    “Only the warming that is happening in the oceans, the air and the phase change of solids to liquid or liquids to vapor count as energy that is deposited into the earth and causing warming. Of this energy 92% goes into the oceans and only about 2.5% goes into the air that is around us.”

    That being the case, explain why there is NO ocean warming.

    The chart above just deconstructed your entire belief system. I know you are incapable of seeing it that way, because your mind is closed. You are a Believer; you don’t need facts.

    There is no acceleration of natural ocean warming. In fact, within 2-sigma error bands, there is no ocean warming at all. Real time SST shows that to be the case, too.

    What would it take to make the scales fall from your eyes? A miracle?

    =====================================

    [PS: Thanx, Obama. <--- this is your fault.]

  87. These people apparently still can’t get past the simple fact that CO2 is a negligible factor in climate change. Whatever math or statistics they used to reach their conclusions about future warming has to be flawed. CO2 historically has gone up AFTER warming, not before as they effectively claim (again!). It’s the same game with models, as opposed to observation and the historical record, both of which prove irrefutably that CO2’s effect on climate is nugatory and so is man’s.

    All of their gyrations can’t erase 4,500 years of historical records amply documenting past variations in climate that have absolutely no connection whatever to CO2 in the air, and most notably the net decline in temps in the 80 years since they peaked in the 1930s, during which time CO2 in the air went up 40 percent.

  88. I am sitting here wondering why Anthony posted this “study.” By posting it here, with out a prefacatry caveat, gives the appearance that WUWT endorses this view. This is happening more and more on WUWT. What exactly is Anthony thinking?

    =========================================

    REPLY: What, you can’t figure it out from the parody lead in and image I produced? Do you “see it now”? -Anthony

  89. Well well. Caldeira and Myrhvold, true believers, come up with some actual science while playing with CMIP5. Unless I misinterpret them, they seem to understand that to start a greenhouse warming a step increase of carbon dioxide is required. I am just assuming that they know it even though they did not get past playing with the rate of warming. But once you know about step increase you should have some scientific curiosity too and ask yourself how many such increases have happened. The answer is none since the beginning of the twentieth century. And then what? If there has been no step increase of CO2 no greenhouse warming can start. We do know of some warmings, however, that did get started during the twentieth century. They include the Arctic warming that began at the turn of the century. Also the early century warming from 1910 to 1940; a putative short warming that supposedly accompanied the PDO phase change in 1976; and the step warming initiated by the super El Nino of 1998 that raised global temperature by a third of a degree in three years and then stopped. That is it for the twentieth century. None of them are carbon dioxide greenhouse warmings. Now Ken, take a note of that and tell this to the IPCC working group that you quit. You never know, some of them just may be educable.

  90. Maybe while they are down there in the deep ocean looking for the missing heat they can keep an eye out for the missing hurricanes. They might be hiding down there too.

  91. “The study was the result of an unusual collaboration of a climate scientist, … and CEO … It is the third paper on which they have collaborated”

    Sounds novel. My wife and I will be making an almost unheard of collaboration of spaghetti and tomato sauce tonight. It will be the first dinner on which we’ve collaborated this month. Somebody had to has to edit and promote for these highly intellectual people. They could not pay me enough.

  92. DBStealey,

    dbstealey says:

    That being the case, explain why there is NO ocean warming.

    ————————-
    If that is the case, then explain why there is SO MUCH WARMING in the OCEANS

    The charts above just deconstructed your entire belief system. I know you are incapable of seeing it that way, because your mind is closed. You are a Believer; you don’t need facts.

    There is multiple layers of proof of the acceleration of ocean warming due to climate change. In fact, within a 95% confidence interval, there is over 300 zettajoules of warming in the oceans since 1995. Real time SST shows that to be the case, too.

    What would it take to make the scales fall from your eyes? A miracle?

    =====================================

    [PS: Thanx, Lewis F. Powell. <--- this is your fault.]

    ——-
    I wanted to show that you are simply sharing biased data that has no scientific value as though it does, simply because it feeds your worldview. There are many real things that need to be addressed in this world to make it a better place. you are not helping.

    Sincerely,
    Jai

  93. Hey, Gail and Chad W. — so glad to see you post. It’s been awhile. Hope all is well.

    *********************
    In a nutshell:

    As Alan Watt said: Those climate models are so bad …..

    (HOW BAD ARE THEY???)

    …. they couldn’t tell the difference between fresh butter and a dead crab.

  94. @ Kevin M (and your wife): Bon appetite!

    (don’t try having a climate model cook your dinner, if it doesn’t kill you, it will taste like junk)

  95. University of Colorado shows that not only is sea level not accelerating — but rather, sea level rise is moderating. It is de-celerating. That is because global warming has stopped.

    Thus, the falsified belief that the oceans are collecting heat is as bogus as all the rest of the climate alarmist predictions.

    Anyone disagreeing should contact CU directly, and explain to them that their data contradicts the alarmist crowd’s belief system…

  96. jai mitchell says:
    October 1, 2013 at 10:23 am
    ————————————————-
    jai,
    There is no way for the “missing heat” to enter the oceans, let alone be transported to the unmeasurable depths by thermohaline circulation.
    Incident LWIR in the 15 micron band does not heat liquid water nor slow its cooling rate. The simplest empirical experiment shows this.

    Yes, incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of most materials, even if it is emitted from a cooler material. No, this does not work on liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

    Trenberthian energy budget cartoons do not differentiate between land and ocean. They simply show “surface” responding uniformly to incident LWIR. This is totally and utterly wrong.

    How do you heat a plastic tub of water with a hair dryer? You point the hair dryer at the side of the tub, not the surface of the water. Empirical experiments show that the same is true for incident LWIR. Try the experiment I showed earlier on this thread. There is no missing heat in the oceans, and no, the ocean will not “freeze over” without radiative gases in the atmosphere.

  97. @Janice Moore, your comment of October 1, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    As Alan Watt said: Those climate models are so bad …..

    (HOW BAD ARE THEY???)

    …. they couldn’t tell the difference between fresh butter and a dead crab.

    The original comment was “… Whizzo Butter and a dead crab”. Let’s give proper credit to Monty Python: Whizzo Butter & Dead Crab

  98. Konrad says

    water cannot absorb 15 micron radiation


    Konrad, that is not true

    The spectrum peaks for CO2 are at
    2.5, 4 and 15 microns

    as you can see from the absorption spectrum link below, water absorbs it easily.

    In addition, CO2 is only 1/3 of the radiative forcing, an additional 1/12 is provided by CH4 and the overwhelming majority is caused by the increase in water vapor in the atmosphere:

    https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-earth_sciences-moisture

    Increase in Atmospheric Moisture Tied to Human Activities

    Observations and climate model results confirm that human-induced warming of the planet is having a pronounced effect on the atmosphere’s total moisture content. Those are the findings of a new study appearing in the Sept. 17 online edition of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

    All of these components absorb LWIR at spectrums that liquid water easily absorbs.

    Surface wind mixing is the origination of the increased energy deposition in the deep ocean, once it is added below 300 feet, it begins to mix through mid ocean currents.

  99. mwhite says:
    October 1, 2013 at 10:31 am

    ” If we continue increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations with emissions from the burning of coal, oil, and gas, the Earth will continue to get hotter.”

    So the world cannot cool down then???

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I believe that last 17 years has already shown this one a dud…. Just sayin.. :)

  100. jai mitchell says:
    October 1, 2013 at 6:20 pm
    “Konrad says
    water cannot absorb 15 micron radiation”
    —————————————————————————
    Jai,
    I did most certainly did NOT say “ water cannot absorb 15 micron radiation” and I would strongly urge you to apologise for that mendaciously attributed “quote”.

    Liquid water does absorb LWIR typically in the first 10 microns of the skin evaporation layer. This simply helps trip liquid water molecules into vapour state faster that they previously would. As I have proved through empirical experiment, this has no effect on the cooling of water below the skin evaporation layer.

    If you wish to challenge my results, then by all means produce your own empirical lab experiment showing that incident LWIR can slow the cooling rate of liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool. You can’t.

    LWIR can slow the cooling rate of most materials, even if emitted from a cooler material. It just does not work for liquid water that is free to evaporatively cool.

    It is time you looked at the reality. Climate scientists simply took the emissivity figures for liquid water to calculate the effect of downwelling LWIR on the oceans. They got it wrong because they never did an empirical experiment to check their hopelessly flawed calculations.

  101. Konrad,

    jai mitchell cannot produce any empirical evidence at all showing measurable changes in temperature due to human emissions. Neither can anyone else.

    That is not to state conclusively that AGW cannot exist. It is certainly possible. But if it exists, it is such a small forcing that it cannot even be measured. Therefore, AGW should be completely disregarded for any policy decisions.

    If something is too small to measure, it is hardly science…

  102. Thank you, Alan Watt, for letting me know my analogy was incorrect. I had no idea what Whizzo butter was, and, wanting to make a comparison between implausible speculation (stinking dead crab) and real world observations (a good thing), I wanted to be sure what represented data was a good thing. Alas, I should not have attempted it. Thanks for the hilarious video. At least my sigh turned into laughter.

    And, while I’m at it, in case anyone decides to let me know I spelled it wrong, “bon a—ppe-ti—t.” Spellcheckers are nice, but sometimes, they are a real pain.

  103. Jai, what you say about specific heat capacity is true, but a liquid behaves differently to a solid. The heat energy can only enter the sea at the surface, this will cause the molecules to become more energetic and some will vaporise, removing the heat energy. Since the only way the depths of the ocean can be heated is by convection (water is a very poor conductor of heat), the temperature gradient would have to be a great deal higher than it actually is to warm the ocean depths. In addition, water is very poor at radiating heat energy, so loss of this heat at night through radiation doesn’t happen either. Basically the theory that the atmospheric temperature isn’t as high as predicted is due to warming of the oceans is b******t!
    One more thing, if this heat energy had entered the oceans and raised the temperature then there should be more hurricanes and tropical storms of greater intensity, not fewer which is the reality!

  104. Theo Goodwin says:

    I really find this sort of thing offensive. All they are doing is playing with models. They should say that. But, No, they claim that they have learned something about CO2 and global warming.
    Without anything to demonstrate that the models correspond to the actual behaviour of the planet these models are (expensive) toys. That the models agree with each other dosn’t mean much.

  105. Who writes this stuff? “…heat hiding in the abyss…”

    My dictionary says:

    abyss |əˈbis|
    noun
    a deep or seemingly bottomless chasm : a rope led down into the dark abyss | figurative I was stagnating in an abyss of boredom.

    • figurative a wide or profound difference between people; a gulf : the abyss between the two nations.

    • figurative the regions of hell conceived of as a bottomless pit : Satan’s dark abyss.

    • ( the abyss) figurative a catastrophic situation seen as likely to occur : teetering on the edge of the abyss of a total political wipeout.

    …that last bullet point sounds about right to me!

  106. CRS, great point. Once you’re in the abyss, there is no coming back.

    What a stupid thing to say. Who wrote that junk? Sounds like a member of the Fantasy Science Club, to me.

Comments are closed.