… or 19 years, according to a key statistical paper.
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley |
The Great Pause has now persisted for 17 years 11 months. Indeed, to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global warming for 18 full years. Professor Ross McKitrick, however, has upped the ante with a new statistical paper to say there has been no global warming for 19 years.
Whichever value one adopts, it is becoming harder and harder to maintain that we face a “climate crisis” caused by our past and present sins of emission.
Taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on Remote Sensing Systems’ satellite-based monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature dataset, there has been no global warming – none at all – for at least 215 months.
This is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Great Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Figure 1. RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and trend (thick bright blue line), October 1996 to August 2014, showing no trend for 17 years 11 months.
The hiatus period of 17 years 11 months, or 215 months, is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record and still show a sub-zero trend.
Yet the length of the Great Pause in global warming, significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the far less exciting real-world temperature change that has been observed.
The First Assessment Report predicted that global temperature would rise by 1.0 [0.7, 1.5] Cº to 2025, equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] Cº per century. The executive summary asked, “How much confidence do we have in our predictions?” IPCC pointed out some uncertainties (clouds, oceans, etc.), but concluded:
“Nevertheless, … we have substantial confidence that models can predict at least the broad-scale features of climate change. … There are similarities between results from the coupled models using simple representations of the ocean and those using more sophisticated descriptions, and our understanding of such differences as do occur gives us some confidence in the results.”
That “substantial confidence” was substantial over-confidence. A quarter-century after 1990, the outturn to date – expressed as the least-squares linear-regression trend on the mean of the RSS and UAH monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies – is 0.34 Cº, equivalent to just 1.4 Cº/century, or exactly half of the central estimate in IPCC (1990) and well below even the least estimate (Fig. 2).
Figure 2. Near-term projections of warming at a rate equivalent to 2.8 [1.9, 4.2] K/century , made with “substantial confidence” in IPCC (1990), January 1990 to August 2014 (orange region and red trend line), vs. observed anomalies (dark blue) and trend (bright blue) at less than 1.4 K/century equivalent, taken as the mean of the RSS and UAH satellite monthly mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
The Great Pause is a growing embarrassment to those who had told us with “substantial confidence” that the science was settled and the debate over. Nature had other ideas. Though more than two dozen more or less implausible excuses for the Pause are appearing in nervous reviewed journals, the possibility that the Pause is occurring because the computer models are simply wrong about the sensitivity of temperature to manmade greenhouse gases can no longer be dismissed.
Remarkably, even the IPCC’s latest and much reduced near-term global-warming projections are also excessive (Fig. 3).
Figure 3. Predicted temperature change, January 2005 to August 2014, at a rate equivalent to 1.7 [1.0, 2.3] Cº/century (orange zone with thick red best-estimate trend line), compared with the observed anomalies (dark blue) and zero real-world trend (bright blue), taken as the average of the RSS and UAH satellite lower-troposphere temperature anomalies.
In 1990, the IPCC’s central estimate of near-term warming was higher by two-thirds than it is today. Then it was 2.8 C/century equivalent. Now it is just 1.7 Cº equivalent – and, as Fig. 3 shows, even that is proving to be a substantial exaggeration.
On the RSS satellite data, there has been no global warming statistically distinguishable from zero for more than 26 years. None of the models predicted that, in effect, there would be no global warming for a quarter of a century.
The Great Pause may well come to an end by this winter. An el Niño event is underway and would normally peak during the northern-hemisphere winter. There is too little information to say how much temporary warming it will cause, but a new wave of warm water has emerged in recent days, so one should not yet write off this el Niño as a non-event. The temperature spikes caused by the el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are clearly visible in Figs. 1-3.
El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña that is one of the excuses for the Pause.
The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause or even shorten for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015 . Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.
Key facts about global temperature
- The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 215 months from October 1996 to August 2014. That is more than half the 428-month satellite record.
- The fastest measured centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº/century – before the industrial revolution. It was not our fault.
- The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
- The fastest measured warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
- Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend has been equivalent to below 1.2 Cº per century.
- The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
- In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of near-term warming was equivalent to 2.8 Cº per century, higher by two-thirds than its current prediction of 1.7 Cº/century.
- The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to below 1.4 Cº per century – half of what the IPCC had then predicted.
- Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its high-end business as usual centennial warming prediction of 4.8 Cº warming to 2100.
- The IPCC’s predicted 4.8 Cº warming by 2100 is well over twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
- The IPCC’s 4.8 Cº-by-2100 prediction is almost four times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
- From 1 April 2001 to 1 July 2014, the warming trend on the mean of the 5 global-temperature datasets is nil. No warming for 13 years 4 months.
- Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
Technical note
Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 214 months October 1996 to August 2014 – just over half the 428-month satellite record.
Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.
The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails. The method is appropriate because global temperature records exhibit little auto-regression.
Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because, though the data are highly variable, the trend is flat.
Other statistical methods might be used. A paper by Professor Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada, published at the end of August 2014, estimated that at that date there had been 19 years without any global warming.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
18 year olds will be able to vote this November who have not seen ANY global warming in their lifetime.
But have been brainwashed into believing it is happening and gearing their politics to combat the menace.
In the future children just won’t know what global warming looks like.
Like Tim Yeo, head of the UK parliamentary committe on technology and science, they will think “warming” means “it is still warmer than it used to be”.
If one attempts to predict an El Niño or La Niña occurrence likelihood in the next 4 months from when the anomaly passes 0.5 pos or neg respectively, we have only had 1 El Niño and 3 La Nina’s in the last 20 times approx, a ratio of 20 %, not the 80% the BOM is predicting.
Figures a bit tough.
Also to be considered is that to three decimal places on a per-decade basis, there has been no global cooling for 18 full years.
When I was 18 years old, I had become convinced of the coming Ice Age.
The difference is, the ice age is still coming.
S.tracton
Give it 2 years and you will have your global cooling.
Make all the fun at me you want if I am wrong.
But if not please insert a retraction.
David H
Didn’t you tell me that 14 years ago?
A climate scientist walks into a bar. “Why the long face?”
Oh my! You just triggered a lost memory! My band opened for Screaming Lord Sutch over 40 years ago in Milwaukee! Thanks for the tweak!
I saw Screaming Lord Sutch in Weymouth in 1962. Cans of blazing gasoline on the stage during “Great Balls of Fire”… The loudest PA system in the world…. Amazing.
When doing real science, the “r^2 = 0.000” of Figures 1 and 3 means the trend lines are complete crud and no responsible researcher would dare claim those lines have any meaning except perhaps to show a linear fit is complete crud, while the “r^2 = 0.245” of Figure 2 still means the exact same thing. When you get r^2 up into at least the low 0.9x range, then there may be something worth noting and worthy of further study.
So why should we act like these lines have any significance? Because it’s Climate Science (TM), not real science?
Wow. You have no idea what’s going on here. Please educate yourself before making such ignorant comments. r^2=0 is exactly the point! The linear regression (“trend line”) has ZERO explanatory power because THERE IS NO TREND IN GLOBAL TEMPERATURES over the last 18 years.
Wow. You have no idea what’s going on here. Please educate yourself before making such ignorant comments. The r^2 test shows how well the regression line fits the data. The post specifically addresses there has been no positive trend to warming for nearly 18 years. An r^2 of zero shows the linear regression is a terrible fit to the data and no conclusions should be drawn from the linear fit.
And why would you say ‘there is no trend in global temperatures’ when a linear fit is referenced? The trend would be positive, neutral, or negative. A linear fit will always show a trend with one of those three qualities, it will not show there is “no” trend.
kadaka:
That’s right, no trend, but there is supposed to be a trend due to increased CO2 according to the consensus theory. So, which is it in your mind. Consensus theory is wrong, or natural variability is much more than previously thought?
if the slope of the line is zero…the equation that the model should produce would be something like y=Bo + 0(x), and if the data was linear, the r square would be really high.
the fact that it isnt very high tells you that while there is no slope to the regression line (temps are flat) the data isnt really linear. thats all.
really simple.
Exactly David. r^2 = 0 implies there is 0 correlation between y and x. In other words, 0 correlation between global temperature anomaly (y) and time (x). Man-made CO2 has increased steadily over the past 20 years. If it was a significant driver of global temperature, then the correlation between global temperature and time, would not be 0 over the past 20 years.
http://www.theweathernetwork.com/news/articles/climate-change-is-turning-swedens-tallest-peak-into-its-second-tallest/35283/ ?????????????????????????????????????????????
What on earth are they talking about? First off, mountain [height] should not include snow/ice at the top. Second, those are not very tall mountains.
Hehe, watch it. Someone from Nepal might pop by to call your mountains ‘hills’.
Linear regression is valid. Natural gas consumption follows a perfectly linear trend with falling temperatures (heating) with only curving at high temperatures where it reaches a residual value (all other purposes).
With this August anomaly, the average is 0.258 over 8 months. This would rank in sixth place if it stayed this way. To set a record in 2014, the average anomaly over the next 4 months needs to be 1.134. The highest ever anomaly for RSS was in April of 1998 when it was 0.857.
For UAH version 5.6, the anomaly would have to jump from 0.199 to 0.768 and stay there for the next four months to break a record. The highest ever anomaly on version 5.6 was set in April of 1998 when it reached 0.663. Version 5.6 would come in fourth if the anomaly average stayed where it is after 8 months.
There is no way that any satellite data will come in first or even second for 2014. So the 1998 records are safe this year.
Australia ski season extended due to a great snow cover. http://www.perisher.com.au/tickets-passes/extended-season.html
I agree with others who have stated we need to stop calling this the “Pause.” It suggests so certainty that temps are headed up once the Pause is “done.” So far internal natural climate dynamics between the ocean atmosphere is the best explanation for the Pause, and maybe for most of the 80s-90s warmup. So it may also just get colder for a decade or so. Then the Pause would really just be The Plateau.
Was just about to post something similar.
It is a halt in warming at this point and can only be called a “pause” if warming resumes.
If cooling begins, then it will be called either the end of the LIA recovery or the beginning of the decline to LIA2.
At least, that’s my take.
As you may of seen, I have made great efforts on this forum to stop it being referred to as ‘pause’, as to do so indicates that you know future events. However, Monckton is another one who still wants it named as such. Odd, given his anti-AGW belief, that he keeps referring to it in the sense that warming will resume. There comes a point when you say that warming has stopped. Personally, I think it has passed. Any new warming could even be seen to be a new ‘block’ of warming! But with the AMO about to fall, temps are only heading downward for 25-30 years.
A Modeler was arguing with an Observer about the existence of CAGW and failing to get his point across. They had been arguing for two hours and finally the Modeler in frustration sat down.
“Listen,” said the Modeler, “You are like a man in a dark room, with no lights and windows, wearing a blindfold looking for a black cat that isn’t there. What do you say to that?”
The Observer thought for a moment.
“Yes, you are probably right,” he said, “but you are also like a man in a dark room, with no lights and windows, wearing a blindfold looking for a black cat that isn’t there. The only difference is, you have found the cat.”
With all due respect to Dave Allen circa 1970
nice 🙂
Should that be black swan?
Nailed it!
I’ll drink to that.
I remember that one! The Pope and an atheist:
http://www.sickipedia.org/search?q=Dave%20Allen-comedian
Looked for it on YouTube, couldn’t find it.
The much missed Dave Allen in good form:-
Did anyone else see him in an interview tell the story of the pilot of a WW1 plane who had been filming all day? It was/is the best story I’ve ever heard. It still makes me laugh to tell it. Legend.
It’s worse than THEY thought!!
Reality vs Computer Models! I know where I would bet my money!!
So…the science is settled then?
97% of nonexistent black cats think so
I see the abbreviation FAR on one of your charts. It might be a good idea to adopt a uniform enumeration of these reports, i.e., AR1, AR2, etc., rather than FAR, SAR. . ., AR4, AR5. Any adult is able to figure it out either way, but let’s make it a bit less cryptic–for the children!
Your idea makes sense, which is never a good idea when dealing with ClimateScience!. Unfortunately, we now have decades of references to FAR and SAR all through the literature. So now it seems we are stuck with it. It was only when the Fourth Report was being prepared that the problem was noticed. The Fourth AND Fifth reports would get called FAR, same as the first report. Worse, the sixth and seventh reports would get SAR, same as the second report. As I recall, there was a bit of chaos while it was all sorted out. I have always been amused that an organization which makes a living by predicting the future, never saw this one coming.
Yeah, it’s like using roman numbers.
NO the names are sybolic.
FAR from believable
TAR : getting bogged down
AR5 : ‘leet’ for my ARSE !
Seconded! Thirded and Fourthed, as well. In fact, let’s call your suggestion Sensibly Rename Assessment Reports (SRAR). Then your original can be SRAR1, and my agreement can be SRAR2. SRAR3 anyone? We definitely don’t want FSRAR, SSRAR, TSRAR, etc…
😉
(Seriously, I agree and have been trying to implement this quietly on my own, but it would be good to get the meme out there before S(ixth)AR.)
rgb
Children just aren’t going to know what Global Warming is…
Now that’s funny! I don’t care when you were born.
And, pretty soon, neither will some adults.
Of course if one uses data from, say, UAH, GISS, Hadcrut4 or Cowtan and Way, then, on applying linear least squares regression, one observes that there is a warming trend, or more precisely an atmospheric warming trend. Cynics might accuse the Noble Viscount of Cherry Picking in his exclusive use of RSS data, but now I’m sounding like Bishop Hill.
As for GLOBAL warming then the evidence from ARGO floats is very strongly in favour of a pretty relentless warming trend during the period often described as the “pause”. Willis Eschenbach (wuwt, June 2013) had to go to the rather extreme lengths of taking the 2nd derivative of this trend (which gives not the rate of warming, but the rate of increase of the rate of warming) in an attempt to demonstrate its “insignificance”,
Bill H.,
The ARGO submersible buoys show no warming, which contradicts the models.
Global warming has stopped. Even the IPCC admits that, when they use the weasel word “pause”. They are not the only ones. Just about every organization involved in global temperature recording now uses the same two Orwellian words: “Pause”, and/or “Hiatus”.
Both words mean the same thing: global warming has stopped. Whether it has stopped for ten years, or fifteen years, or twenty years does not matter. What matters is the fact that every climate alarmist and alarmist organization was flat wrong, when they endlessly predicted that global warming would accelerate. Instead, it stopped.
When skeptics are shown to be wrong if new facts appear, we admit it and re-assess the situation. That is entirely different from the climate alarmist crowd, which refuses to admit that global warming has stopped.
That looks like what you are doing. The rest of us can see that global warming has stopped. Be a stand-up guy, and admit it. No one will hold it against you. In fact, it will generate admiration — whereas claiming that global warming is still chugging along as usual brings ridicule.
Mr. Stealey, Since Lord Monckton’s article is about global warming (hint: it’s in the article’s title) over the last 18 years your attempt to defend his position by showing a graph of GHC covering only 8 years is highly dubious. Cynics might even suspect cherry picking. It’s not as if there’s a lack of sources of data covering the full period, even on WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/22/gavin-schmidt-issues-corrections-to-the-realclimate-presentation-of-modeled-global-ocean-heat-content/
If you look at the graphs in this article by Dr. Tisdale you will see evidence for an absence of GW in the period to which the Noble Viscount refers is entirely lacking, particularly when one considers the OHC over the zero to 2000 m depth (the red line in Dr.Tisdale’s third figure).
The IPCC scenario Sir Christopher shows are surface temperatures; he then proceeds to to compare them with satellite data (which require ‘adjusting’ before release). Comparing apples with pears is a necessary part of this particular illusion. Making a splash at the AGW skeptic trough, draws attention to one’s self.
Village Idiot
The Third Viscount Monckton of Brencley is a Peer of the Realm and not merely a knight, so you insult him by addressing him as “Sir Christopher”. Lord Monckton or Viscount Monckton would be proper.
In his above article he compares different data sets and demonstrates that each of the data sets indicates global warming has stopped.
I agree with you that there is an “illusion”, and that “illusion” is that global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA) is a real metric: please read Appendix B of this.
The ridiculous ‘surface temperature’ data is “adjusted” almost every month with astonishing results. Each of these data sets changes from ‘apples’ to become ‘pears’ most months; e.g. see here.
Your ‘belly-flop’ has made a “splash” which has drawn attention to yourself, but only a Village Idiot could fail to be embarrassed by that.
I don’t know of an “AGW skeptic trough”: is it related to the mythical “oil money”?
Richard
HadCrut4 shows a warming of 1.38 ±0.92°C/century (2σ) over the same period (1990-2014). Exactly the same as RSS+UAH’s 1.37°C/century.
If I may add Village Idiot, according to HadCrut4 there has been ZERO WARMING thus far this century; 2001-2014: -0.09 ±1.75 °C/century
All temperature data, whether satellite or terrestrial, are adjusted for various factors before the final monthly anomalies are determined. The surface temperatures measured by terrestrial weather stations and the lower-troposphere temperature measured by satellites track one another very closely for obvious reasons. In both instances, temperatures are being measured – i.e. apples are being compared with apples. And the mean of the satellite datasets over recent decades is very, very close to the mean of the terrestrial datasets.
wasp nests here at my place (central maine usa) are all underground, first time in yrs I have not had to kill a nest in outbuildings.
others (I am told not personally verified) nearby have seen some 20 feet up in trees.
going to be long winter.
I wish there were warming…
That I have noticed there have been no wasps around our place (So. Calif) since about 6-9 months ago. These buggers usually like to nest up under the eaves where it is warm and dry. Doesn’t seem much cooler, but that is subjective anyway.
BTW WD-40 kills them almost instantly; I always keep a spray can handy.
Thanks for the tip on yet another use for that spray
I’ve used wd40 in emergency (I am allergic to SOME stings, most wasps ok but need to watch for bald faced hornets) but spectracide is my goto can.
Excerpted from IPCC AR5 TS.6 Key Uncertainties
“Paleoclimate reconstructions and Earth System Models indicate
that there is a positive feedback between climate and the carbon
cycle, but confidence remains low in the strength of this feedback,
particularly for the land. {6.4}”
TS.6 is a page and a half at the end of the technical section, a summary of what the scientists don’t know, have doubts, uncertainties. The authors of this section apparently did not compare notes with the authors of the summary. The tone of confidences and certainties could not be more contradictory. Other uncertainties include clouds, ice sheets, sea levels, and more. Recommended reading. Of particular interest is this comment’s opening excerpt. By “..remains low…” are they suggesting that IPCC AR4 had low confidence in the magnitude and that low confidence continues with AR5? Let’s take a look at this CO2 feedback loop.
As I understand it, the CO2 feedback loop works like this: CO2 absorbs energy from a specific wavelength of sunlight, whereupon its electrons become excited, jumping in and out of their orbits. The excited CO2 molecule then emits a less energetic wavelength, the incident wavelength minus the work function. This is known as the photoelectric effect, the discovery and explanation of which garnered Einstein his Nobel prize. It’s also how fluorescent light bulbs, lasers, and LEDs work. The re-emitted wavelength excites water vapor molecules which heat up just as in your microwave. The heated water molecules heat the air which heat the oceans which release CO2. CO2 is less soluble in warm liquid than in cold. The crisp spritz opening a cold beer as opposed to the geyser from opening a beer that has been in the trunk all day. This is known as a positive feedback loop. It feeds on itself like feedback between a microphone and PA system. If the magnitude is large enough it rapidly escalates, like a chain reaction. The rapid increase in global warming predicted by assorted GCMs is due to the magnitude selected for the feedback loop. So how much heat does the air from this loop and the allegedly rising global temperatures transfer into the ocean?
Here’s the science section:
First let’s define the properties. The heat capacity of water is 1 Btu/lb-°F. The heat capacity of air is 0.24 Btu/lb-°F. The density of water is 62.4 lb/cu ft. The density of air is 0.0763 lb/cu ft. The latent heat of water’s evaporation or condensation is about 950 Btu/lb.
Sensible Heat Transportation 4.2 pounds of air to heat one pound of water.
Per pound Heat Capacity Hot Cold Btu
Air 0.24/Btu/lb-°F 80 50 7.2
Water 1.0/Btu/lb-°F 80 50 30 30/7.2 = 4.2
Latent Heat Transportation, 1 lb of air
Dry Bulb Relative Humidity water content, grains water content, lb Heat Content, Btu
Air 90 °F 0% 0.0 0 21.6
90 °F 100% 218.4 0.0312 56.0
saturated air: 1,101 Btu/lb
Latent Evaporation Heat Transportation, 1 lb of water
Water 950 Btu/lb
Premise 1: Water’s latent heat of evaporation moves a lot more energy, by a factor as large a 100, from the ocean to the atmosphere than the sensible heat of the temperature difference moves energy from the air to the ocean.
Premise 2: Water evaporates into the air not because the air is warm, but because the air is dry.
Here are few thought exercises to grasp the concepts.
A therapeutic swimming pool in Phoenix is heated to 80 °F. The warm water soothes arthritic joints. The pool is covered with a canopy so there is no solar gain. The canopy sides are open to the ambient 105 °F. The heater fails. What happens to the pool’s water temperature? Thermodynamics says that heat will flow from the hot source to the cold sink, from the 105 °F air to the 80 °F water. This is sensible heat, transferred by contact, convection, conduction. So why is it necessary to heat the pool at all? Air is terrible heat transfer medium. It is stagnant air trapped in the walls of your house that keeps you warm or cool. But there is also evaporation from the pool’s surface. Just like your evaporative cooler, evaporating water cools itself. Actually the pool’s water temperature at the water/air interface will approach the ambient wet bulb temperature.
Fill a plastic gallon milk jug with water and install the cap. Place it in 105 °F shade together with a shallow tub with a gallon of water about 1” to 2” deep. After several hours open the jug and pour a little water onto your cupped hands. Place a hand in the tub of water. What did you observe? The water in the closed jug is quite warm. The water in the tub is cool. What’s the difference? The open tub allowed the water to evaporate, transferring energy into the air and keeping the water cool. Repeat the experiment, but this time pour the contents of the warmed jug into another shallow pan. How long does it take for the warm water to cool to the same temperature as the tub? There’s the project for your next school science project.
The water/steam/Rankine cycle has been used for over a hundred years in, among many applications, the production of electricity. The steam that exhausts from the turbine must be condensed back into water so it can be pumped back through the boiler. This condensation is accomplished by pumping cold water through a shell and tube heat exchanger, aka the steam surface condenser. Thousand horsepower pumps move hundreds of thousands of gallons per minute through the tubes where the water absorbs the latent heat of condensation, by coincidence, about 950 Btu/lb. The water is frequently pumped to a wet cooling tower where the water sprays and cascades through an air stream. The air and water droplets form surface contact layers where the latent heat of evaporation transfers the condensed steam’s energy to the air stream. In the process, the air’s sensible heat or dry bulb temperature actually increases only a few degrees.
The crust on the ocean’s floor is relatively thin in many spots, as little as a few thousand feet. The weight of gazillion tons of water keep the earth’s molten core from breaking through – most of the time. However, the extreme heat from the earth’s core warms the water at the bottom of the ocean, a heat source similar to the steam surface condenser mentioned earlier. Instead of pumps, the warm water rises, circulates, to the surface where it evaporates the geothermal heat flux energy into the air, cools, and then sinks, natural circulation.
Over the past couple of decades the CO2 concentration at Mauna Loa has steadily increased, but assorted atmospheric temperatures have essentially flat lined. (Build your own graphs at woodfortrees.org)This embarrassing missing heat was first supposedly “found” in the Pacific and then later “found” in the Atlantic. Considering the previous observations the chances that the newly discovered heat came from the atmosphere are rather slim. The heat most likely comes from the geothermal heat flux through the ocean floor. IPCC AR5 TS.6 doesn’t know what the ocean is doing below 2,000 meters and low confidence above that. The average depth of the ocean is 4,000 meters though that makes the bottom half a big unknown.
Excerpted from IPCC AR5 TS.6
“Observational coverage of the ocean deeper than 2000 m is still
limited and hampers more robust estimates of changes in global
ocean heat content and carbon content. This also limits the quantification
of the contribution of deep ocean warming to sea level
rise. {3.2, 3.7, 3.8; Box 3.1}”
Why is the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop important, why does it even matter? Quite frankly, the magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop is all that matters. That magnitude determines how quickly the atmosphere warms, how soon the ice caps melt, the sea levels rise, all of the dire projections of the IPCC AR5 summary and GCMs. If the magnitude of the feedback loop is small compared to other drivers of heating and cooling, such as the latent heat of evaporation (and that is rather obvious), then all of the dire projections, handwringing, and calls to action are naught but tales of sound and fury, signifying nothing, told by you know whom.
Premise 3: The magnitude of the CO2 feedback loop is irrelevant since the role that loop plays in warming the atmosphere is insignificant.
I think this supports your premise #3. Adding more CO2 to an atmosphere with 400 ppm causes no measurable increase in temperature. That all happened in the first couple dozen ppm.
CO2 feedback is only one of many feedbacks that may operate on the climate object. However, it is not the most important feedback – theory would lead us to expect that the water vapor feedback might be more important, though there are many uncertainties. Also, the magnitude of the CO2 feedback is unknown. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report, for instance, puts it at 25-225 ppmv per Kelvin of global warming, a remarkably wide interval.
So..the greenhouse gas theory is a bust? Or do I need to wait for a negative slope?
I like your extensive review Nick,
And of course we have a few sceptics.
Just one simple point.
Water vapor is 99.9 percent of the GREEN HOUSE GAS EVERYONE IS FREAKING OUT ABOUT.
So please leave the .1 percent alone it is stupid to get crazy about .1 percent of nothing.
C02 is feeding you and your family.
Be happy about that and shut up.
My God,
Did you not hear the story of chicken little in first grade.
The world goes thru cycles.
If you cant handle that then get out get out fast.
Do you think even if C02 was a problem,( it is not) that China would slow down for a second.
Give me and the smart people on this forum a break.
Dave H
No, the theory is not in doubt. But the amount of global warming that might actually occur in our complex ocean-atmosphere system is turning out to be much harder to predict than the usual suspects had over-confidently thought. All other things being equal, some warming is to be expected from our adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. But we do not know whether all other things are equal.
I don’t understand why a least squared fit is best. 2 days at +1 degree should count the same as 1 day at +2 degrees. Prove otherwise.
I agree. It always seemed to me that a least-squares system gave too much weight to outliers, and that it would be more sensible to use say a “least abs” or “sqrt abs” method. I ran a number of tests using various other methods on various datasets, both real-world and contrived, and found that the methods made very little difference other than with very small contrived datasets. So unless someone comes up with a better study than mine, I accept least-squares as a reasonable standard mechanism.
If you are dealing with say random measurement errors, even if not normally distributed, then least squares applies. But what is random here?
Theoretically least squares can be shown to the “best unbiased linear estimator” assuming that variability that has nothing to do with the real physical relationship is normally distributed. ie assuming random measurement errors or other purely random variation in the physical quantities being measured.
Outliers do have a large effect but if the errors are normally distributed they will be rare enough to prevent it being the best estimation of a linear slope.
It also assumes negligible error in x coordinate which is applicable here.
However, in order to try to fit a linear model, you need a reason to suppose that a linear model is appropriate. If the r^2 statistic is close to zero the result is telling you that you were wrong. This is the point KDK was trying to make.
There is nothing about climate data on any scale that suggests a linear model is a useful or appropriate model. Climate change is NOT linear.
However Lord Monckton is making a political point in a political debate, he is deliberately adopting the alarmists metrics to show that they are wrong.
Likewise the terminology. I like his “The Great Pause”. I can see this going down in history books: ” the Great Pause of the 21st century, which preceded the ……”
I think one of the reasons a least squares fit is used is the math is much simpler than trying to use abs(δT). That would make it not so much “the best” but “the most convenient.” While perhaps not so much a problem in this case given the discrete data, modeling things as a continuous function like a polynomial lets you integrate the function more readily than you can a discontinuous function.
Oops – I meant upper case delta, of course. Δ, apparently.
“Prove otherwise” is kind of pushy when you don’t elaborate your point. It’s tempting to reply that you’ll just have to keep on not understanding…..
I doubt any of this matters. The big problem with global warming, as evidenced by the recent new study that debunks the previous study, now showing CO2 AND solar forcing operating in tandem, means that advocates will find evidence. 97% of them will find the evidence, you know. So only 3% are looking for anti-evidence.
In a quanta in the noise instance of global warming, whose going to win out, no matter the truth?
The pause could last 30 years, and advocates will be saying the same thing.
I realize we’ve been using a negative trend as the cut-off but it is interesting that the trend for 18 years is only 2.67567e-05 per year. For all intents and purposes that is zero. So, I don’t think anyone is being too wild in saying the pause/hiatus/plateau is now 18 years.
You raise a good point. And interestingly enough, the negative slope for 215 months is “slope = -5.54517e-05 per year”. So since the negative slope for 15 years is more negative than the positive slope for 16 years, one could say that to the nearest month, the absence of warming is indeed 18 years.
What I find somewhat incredible is that during the period of no global temperature increase, there has been substantial growth in sea ice. When one considers that formation of ice releases significant heat somewhere, either to outer space, into the atmosphere, or into the oceans. It is just like a refrigerator, to cool the inside of the box or make ice, the heat is ejected to the room.
Has anyone calculated the amount of energy released associated with ice growth? If so I would appreciate a reference.
Is it possible that this heat has gone into the ocean thus explaining the reported rise in ocean temperatures?
Any thoughts?
Yes, when ice forms heat is released – http://apollo.lsc.vsc.edu/classes/met130/notes/chapter2/lat_heat2.html – but it is a reduction in surrounding heat that causes the ice to form in the first place, and the released heat only compensates for a part of that missing heat. So all that happens is that the surroundings cool a bit less than they otherwise would have. And vice versa on melting, of course. So there isn’t actually any excess heat to be disposed of, just a negative feedback slowing the system down a bit. That’s my take, anyway.
Thanks for comment.
Looking at it the other direction, if the surroundings begin to heat up and if the ice starts melting it will take heat energy away from the surroundings (air or water) and mitigate the extent of heating up. The ice formation or melting is potentially a significant “heat” sink that reduces the effect of warming. While the Arctic ice mass was melting it effectively reduced the extent of global warming, similarly as the ice mass is growing it essentially reduces the amount of global cooling.
For me the question is how significant is the process relative to other factors, of course this is related to the mass of ice formed or melted which has been significant over the last several years..
What am I missing?
There is no ‘missing heat’ in the oceans, yet more bad physics from the Trenberth School trying to keep the IPCC climate scam going. Ocean warming is in the upper ocean; it is balanced by cooling of the deeps.
The Earth operates as a heat engine to ensure thermalised SW = OLR. There is no heat trapping by GHGs. The Arctic melt-freeze cycle, 50 to 70 years, is all about accumulation in ice of materials which reduce cloud albedo, accelerating ice melt. When most of the old ice has disappeared, the process reverses. The same mechanism over a much longer time scale provides the amplification of tsi change at the end of ice ages….
I looked at this the other day where Bob Tisdale posted SST data showing notable temperature “anomalies” in the Bering Sea and around Greenland.
A rough calculation ( using physicals constants for pure water, not sea water ) shows that freezing 1kg of water releases enough energy to heat 100kg of water by the “anomaly” of 0.8 kelvin show in those areas.
The increasing ice volume is causing localised warming. Apparently this is large enough to cause an increase in the global averaged “anomaly” since there is not significant warming or cooling anomalies elsewhere.
So there you have it, freezing in the Arctic is causing global warming. !!
Greg,
I agree with your comment. The interesting point for me is that we chase hundredths of a degree change in global temperature while ignoring the fact that this measurement does not consider the energy released or adsorbed by our poles. If this is significant relative to hundredths of degrees why is this apparently ignored?
Take the Doomer Geographers and place them into a lead-lined titanium 1 m thick pressure sphere.
Line the exterior of the sphere with 100 tons of TNT.
Ignite.
Would we finally get the Princeton Tokamak to ignite beautiful Fusion.
A well worth experiment to use the worthless bodies of Geographers to supply the needed power to the New World Order.
Ha ha