Guest Post by Werner Brozek, Edited by Just The Facts:
The comment referred to in the title is the following by Kevin Trenberth regarding heat in the deep oceans:
“The centre of action is the Pacific Ocean but the main places where heat goes deep into the ocean are the Atlantic and Southern Oceans rather than the Pacific,”
The following equation demonstrates how the temperature change of an object relates to the number of joules applied to the object versus the mass and specific heat capacity of the object. The equation is H = mcdt where H is the energy in joules; m is the mass in kilograms; c is the specific heat capacity in joules/(kilogram x C); and dt is the change in temperature in C.
Assume we have a 4.0 kilogram shot put made of iron and a 4.0 gram marble made of the same iron, illustrated by the image above. Now let us assume we apply the same quantity of heat to each. In this case, H will be the same and c will also be the same. The same amount of heat that will raise the temperature of the 4.0 kilogram shot put by 1.0 C, while it will raise the temperature of the 4.0 gram marble by 1000 C.
What would happen in a closed system if just the shot put was raised by 1.0 C and it then touched the marble? Answer: The marble would go up in temperature by 1.0 C and the affect on the shot put would not be measurable.
What would happen in a closed system if just the marble was raised by 1000 C and it then touched the shot put, once equilibrium was reached? Answer: The shot put would go up in temperature by 1.0 C and the marble would go down by 999 C ignoring significant digits for now.
Now we will apply the above equation to Earth’s air. The total mean mass of the atmosphere is 5.1 x 10^18 kg. We will assume the specific heat capacity of air is 1000 J/(kg C). Now, we will calculate how much heat it would take to raise the temperature of the air by 1.0 C. H = mcdt = 5.1 x 10^18 kg x 1000 J/(kg C) x 1.0 C = 5.1 x 10^21 J.
Now we will apply the above equation to Earth’s oceans. The total mean mass of the oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg. We will assume the specific heat capacity of the oceans is 4000 J/(kg C). Now, we will calculate how much heat it would take to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1.0 C. H = mcdt = 1.4 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/(kg C) x 1.0 C = 5.6 x 10^24 J.
Keeping the ratios simple, we see it takes about 1000 times as much energy to raise the temperature of the oceans by 1.0 C than to raise the temperature of the air by 1.0 C.
What would happen to Earth’s air temperature if we warmed Earth’s oceans 1.0 C? Answer: The air temperature could stay the same (See next paragraph.) or it could go up by 1.0 C at the most.
At the present time, the deep oceans are at about 3 C. Let us just for discussion sake assume it warmed by 0.1 C in 60 years. And let us further assume the average air temperature is 14 C. That would mean the deep oceans need to warm by about 10 C before they start affecting the air temperature. At the rate of 0.1 C in 60 years, it would take 6000 years for the oceans to warm by 10 C.
And what would happen if we were to raise the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere by 10.0 C? Answer: The oceans would act as a huge heat sink and would warm by 0.010 C once equilibrium was reached. Of course, this may takes decades or centuries. However the greater the difference in temperature, the faster the hotter object loses heat.
I am fully aware of the fact that I am making many assumptions here. For example, I am assuming the average human emissions of CO2 over the next 6000 years will the same as for the last 60 years. As a result, rising temperatures in the oceans could accelerate if it were not for the logarithmic affect of additional CO2. This also assumes that there will be enough fossil fuels to last that long.
But regardless of any other unstated assumptions you may find fault with which could push things in either direction, I believe it is clear that my grandchildren (two so far) and the grandchildren of James Hansen will not be negatively affected by heat going into the deep oceans:
“The title of the book, Storms of My Grandchildren, refers to the ferocious and stormy weather events that will occur next generation if fossil fuel use continues in the way it has.”
In the sections below, as in previous posts, we will present you with the latest facts. The information will be presented in three sections and an appendix. The first section will show for how long there has been no warming on some data sets. At the moment, only the satellite data have flat periods of longer than a year. The second section will show for how long there has been no statistically significant warming on several data sets. The third section will show how January of 2015 compares with 2014 and the warmest years and months on record so far. For three of the data sets, 2014 also happens to be the warmest year. The appendix will illustrate sections 1 and 2 in a different way. Graphs and a table will be used to illustrate the data.
Section 1
This analysis uses the latest month for which data is available on WoodForTrees.com (WFT). All of the data on WFT is also available at the specific sources as outlined below. We start with the present date and go to the furthest month in the past where the slope is a least slightly negative on at least one calculation. So if the slope from September is 4 x 10^-4 but it is – 4 x 10^-4 from October, we give the time from October so no one can accuse us of being less than honest if we say the slope is flat from a certain month.
1. For GISS, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
2. For Hadcrut4, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. Note that WFT has not updated Hadcrut4 since July and it is only Hadcrut4.2 that is shown.
3. For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
4. For UAH, the slope is flat since February 2009 or an even 6 years. (goes to January using version 5.6 and based on Walter Dnes’ calculation.)
5. For RSS, the slope is flat since December 1996 or 18 years, 2 months (goes to January).
The next graph shows just the lines to illustrate the above. Think of it as a sideways bar graph where the lengths of the lines indicate the relative times where the slope is 0. In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.
When two things are plotted as I have done, the left only shows a temperature anomaly.
The actual numbers are meaningless since the two slopes are essentially zero. No numbers are given for CO2. Some have asked that the log of the concentration of CO2 be plotted. However WFT does not give this option. The upward sloping CO2 line only shows that while CO2 has been going up over the last 18 years, the temperatures have been flat for varying periods on the two sets.
Section 2
For this analysis, data was retrieved from Nick Stokes’ Trendviewer available on his website. This analysis indicates for how long there has not been statistically significant warming according to Nick’s criteria. Data go to their latest update for each set. In every case, note that the lower error bar is negative so a slope of 0 cannot be ruled out from the month indicated.
On several different data sets, there has been no statistically significant warming for between 14 and 22 years according to Nick’s criteria. Cl stands for the confidence limits at the 95% level.
Dr. Ross McKitrick has also commented on these parts and has slightly different numbers for the three data sets that he analyzed. I will also give his times.
The details for several sets are below.
For UAH: Since July 1996: CI from -0.019 to 2.225
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 16 years on UAH.)
For RSS: Since December 1992: CI from -0.000 to 1.753
(Dr. McKitrick says the warming is not significant for 26 years on RSS.)
For Hadcrut4.3: Since June 1997: CI from -0.015 to 1.132
(Dr. McKitrick said the warming was not significant for 19 years on Hadcrut4.2 going to April. Hadcrut4.3 would be slightly shorter however I do not know what difference it would make to the nearest year.)
For Hadsst3: Since April 1995: CI from -0.006 to 1.710
For GISS: Since August 2000: CI from -0.007 to 1.412
Note that all of the above times, regardless of the source, with the exception of GISS are larger than 15 years which NOAA deemed necessary to “create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate”.
Section 3
This section shows data about January 2015 and other information in the form of a table. The table shows the five data sources along the top and other places so they should be visible at all times. The sources are UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4, Hadsst3, and GISS.
Down the column, are the following:
1. 14ra: This is the final ranking for 2014 on each data set.
2. 14a: Here I give the average anomaly for 2014.
3. year: This indicates the warmest year on record so far for that particular data set. Note that the satellite data sets have 1998 as the warmest year and the others have 2014 as the warmest year.
4. ano: This is the average of the monthly anomalies of the warmest year just above.
5. mon: This is the month where that particular data set showed the highest anomaly. The months are identified by the first three letters of the month and the last two numbers of the year.
6. ano: This is the anomaly of the month just above.
7. y/m: This is the longest period of time where the slope is not positive given in years/months. So 16/2 means that for 16 years and 2 months the slope is essentially 0. Periods of under a year are not counted and are shown as “0”.
8. sig: This the first month for which warming is not statistically significant according to Nick’s criteria. The first three letters of the month are followed by the last two numbers of the year.
9. sy/m: This is the years and months for row 8. Depending on when the update was last done, the months may be off by one month.
10. McK: These are Dr. Ross McKitrick’s number of years for three of the data sets.
11. Jan: This is the January 2015 anomaly for that particular data set.
12. rnk: This is the rank that each particular data set would have for 2015 without regards to error bars and assuming no changes. Think of it as an update 5 minutes into a game.
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.14ra | 3rd | 6th | 1st | 1st | 1st |
| 2.14a | 0.27 | 0.255 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.68 |
| 3.year | 1998 | 1998 | 2014 | 2014 | 2014 |
| 4.ano | 0.42 | 0.55 | 0.564 | 0.479 | 0.68 |
| 5.mon | Apr98 | Apr98 | Jan07 | Aug14 | Jan07 |
| 6.ano | 0.663 | 0.857 | 0.835 | 0.644 | 0.93 |
| 7.y/m | 6/0 | 18/2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 8.sig | Jul96 | Dec92 | Jun97 | Apr95 | Aug00 |
| 9.sy/m | 18/7 | 22/2 | 17/7 | 19/10 | 14/6 |
| 10.McK | 16 | 26 | 19 | ||
| Source | UAH | RSS | Had4 | Sst3 | GISS |
| 11.Jan | 0.351 | 0.367 | 0.686 | 0.440 | 0.75 |
| 12.rnk | 3rd | 3rd | 1st | 2nd | 1st |
If you wish to verify all of the latest anomalies, go to the following:
For UAH, version 5.6 was used. Note that WFT uses version 5.5 however this version was last updated for December 2014 and it looks like it will no longer be given.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.6.txt
For RSS, see: ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_3.txt
For Hadcrut4, see: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/data/current/time_series/HadCRUT.4.3.0.0.monthly_ns_avg.txt
For Hadsst3, see: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadSST3-gl.dat
For GISS, see:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
To see all points since January 2014 in the form of a graph, see the WFT graph below. Note that Hadcrut4 is the old version that has been discontinued. WFT does not show Hadcrut4.3 yet. As well, only UAH version 5.5 is shown which stopped in December. WFT does not show version 5.6 yet.
As you can see, all lines have been offset so they all start at the same place in January 2014. This makes it easy to compare January 2014 with the latest anomaly.
Appendix
In this part, we are summarizing data for each set separately.
RSS
The slope is flat since December, 1996 or 18 years, 2 months. (goes to January)
For RSS: There is no statistically significant warming since December 1992: CI from -0.000 to 1.753.
The RSS anomaly for January 2015 is 0.367. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.857. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.255 and it was ranked 6th.
UAH
The slope is flat since February 2009 or an even 6 years according to Walter Dnes. (goes to January using version 5.6)
For UAH: There is no statistically significant warming since July 1996: CI from -0.019 to 2.225. (This is using version 5.6 according to Nick’s program.)
The UAH anomaly for January 2015 is 0.351. This would rank it as 3rd place. 1998 was the warmest at 0.42. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in April of 1998 when it reached 0.663. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.27 and it was ranked 3rd.
Hadcrut4.3
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For Hadcrut4: There is no statistically significant warming since June 1997: CI from -0.015 to 1.132.
The Hadcrut4 anomaly for January 2015 was 0.686. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.835. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.564 and this set a new record.
Hadsst3
For Hadsst3, the slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning. For Hadsst3: There is no statistically significant warming since April 1995: CI from -0.006 to 1.710.
The Hadsst3 anomaly for January 2015 was 0.440. This would rank 2nd if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in August of 2014 when it reached 0.644. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.479 and this set a new record.
GISS
The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.
For GISS: There is no statistically significant warming since August 2000: CI from -0.007 to 1.412.
The GISS anomaly for January 2015 is 0.75. This would set a new record if it stayed this way. The highest ever monthly anomaly was in January of 2007 when it reached 0.93. The anomaly in 2014 was 0.68 and it set a new record.
Conclusion
For all intents and purposes, the deep ocean is an infinite heat sink. And if some of our presumed AGW ends up there, that is good news. Or am I missing something?
About the Author: Werner Brozek was working on his metallurgical engineering degree using a slide rule when the first men landed on the moon. Now he enjoys playing with new toys such as the WFT graphs. Werner retired in 2011 after teaching high school physics and chemistry for 39 years.
I’m guessing the point he is making is that if the heat stops going into the atmosphere and switches to the deep ocean, then in the future it will switch again from the deep ocean and return to heating the atmosphere (at some stage, eventually). So be afraid, very afraid. Or something like that. Obviously no case can be made to worry about the heat that went into the oceans.
What I find amusing about all this is that when Pielke Snr., was making the case for measuring global warming by ocean heat content, RC poo poo’d the idea and only wanted to consider the atmosphere. Now that the atmospheric warming has stopped, all that RC wants to talk about is the heat going into the ocean. If so much money wasn’t being wasted and so many bad policies implemented, the situation would make a great comedy.
The Surface of the ocean is 22˚ and the temperature of the air above the surface is 14˚. Why does anyone think a cold object can heat a warmer object?
The authors analysis is a piece of crap.
Trenberth talked about the deep ocean where it is about 3 C.
Trenberth needs to explain how the atmosphere can warm the bottom of the ocean without first warming the surface of the ocean, which is already warmer than the atmosphere.
Trenberths assertion that the warming is hiding in the ocean is absurd.
This might interest you by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
Then consider that none of this is occurring in a closed system. The Earth is continuously loosing heat to space and the more heat the planet retains the faster the rate at which it will loose the heat to space. This most basic fundamental of radiative physics is never mentioned by the AGW cultists because it completely quashes their already weak argument.
“Why does anyone think a cold object can heat a warmer object?”
So what’s been measured here (hot water moving under cold water) is physically possible?
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/sub_surf_mon.gif
Maybe the observations are wrong, or maybe someone is not very bright.
Keep in mind that certain things happen because more salty hot water could be denser than less salty cold water.
WB, thanks for the link to Spencer. I had been looking for that earlier without success.
Why does anyone think a cold object can heat a warmer object?
As with most discussions of temperature and “heat”, I believe misunderstandings arise because the word “heat” means different things to different people. As I recall, the physics definition of heat is: “heat” is the transfer of internal energy from one object to another object because the objects are at different temperatures. Without work being done, heat is always in the direction from the higher temperature object to the lower temperature object. In this sense, a colder object (object at a lower temperature) cannot heat a warmer object (object at a higher temperature); and if that’s what you mean by “heat a warmer object,” then I agree it is nonsense to think a cold object can “heat” a warm object. In my opinion, however, when Trenberth talks about the “missing heat,” he is using the word “heat” in the sense of energy, not in the sense of energy transfer from a higher-temperature object to a lower-temperature object.
In the Trenberth sense of “heat”, I believe if there is a source of energy other than the internal energy of two objects at different temperatures, the fact that heat always moves from a higher-temperature object to a lower-temperature object doesn’t mean the presence of a lower temperature object can’t affect (and in some cases, cause an increase in) the temperature of a higher-temperature object. How is that possible you say?
Suppose you have a large refrigerator maintained at a temperature of 2C. You put a low-wattage electrical heating element in a small pot of water, turn on the heating element, and put the pot of water/heating element in the refrigerator. After several hours you note that the temperature of the water reaches 10C and remains at that temperature. Now you adjust the temperature setting of the refrigerator so that the refrigerator is maintained at 7C. After a sufficient time the water will reach a stable temperature greater than 10C. Since at no time was the temperature of the refrigerator greater than the temperature of the water, it seems to me a situation has been created where changing the temperature of a lower-temperature object (the refrigerator, which is always colder than the water), we have increased the temperature of a higher-temperature object (the water). Thus, in the sense that “heat” is the exchange of internal energy from a higher-temperature object to a lower-temperature object, I think it’s fair to say a lower-temperature object can’t “heat” a higher-temperature object. However, I think it’s incorrect to say that a lower-temperature object can’t affect the temperature of a higher-temperature object; and if this is what you mean by “heat” a higher temperature object, then I think a lower-temperature object can “heat” a higher-temperature object..
In the case of the Earth’s atmosphere/oceans, the sun acts as an external energy source. Thus, I believe it is theoretically possible for a change in the temperature of the water deep within the ocean to have a positive effect on the atmosphere’s temperature. I’m not claiming that this is the case. I am claiming that statements like “a colder object can’t heat a warmer object,” may be correct for the physics definition of “heat”; but they are not correct for the common man’s definition of “heat.”
Genghis, your average body temperature is 37C. Say that the ambient air temperature is 10C. Your skin temperature drops and you put on a sweater. The temperature of the sweater is 10C, the same as ambient. But it reduces the heat loss from your skin to the atmosphere and your skin becomes warmer.
If the sea surface temperature is 22C and the air temperature is 14C, the nett flow of energy is from sea to air. Energy is moving from sea to air, and somewhat less energy is moving from air to sea. Increase the air temperature and the energy flow from air to sea will increase. That will cause the nett flow of energy from sea to air to decrease and the sea will become warmer.
I would be surprised if someone reads a reply after 24 hours. Except for me since I wrote the article and I need to see if I am addressed.
Werner Brozek
Read. Replied. 8<)
I have said 1000 times, if the oceans are warming co2 is not cause
Not buying it. Apparently nobody understands the difference between weather and climate, unless of course we are going to continue to partition climate areas down to 100×100 meter blocks. UHI certainly impacts local weather, but we are a long way of knowing whether it impacts the regional climate, partly because there is no consistent standard for what constitutes a “climate”. We don’t have near enough data to determine whether a few decades of changing UHI can change a climate, which has an unknown variable cyclicity measured in what – decades, centuries, aeons? You can make a case for UHI altering micro-climates, but we are a very long way from determining whether UHI affects continental climate zones.
Crap! Wrong post. Ignore this comment in this post. Sigh.
Sorry…too late!
LOL!!!
Thank you for a very interesting analysis. I always thought there was something extremely simplistic about the “radiative forcing” model behind the IPCC (and others) analysis of CO2 impact.
I can’t bring myself to call that fraud “global warming”, when it hasn’t warmed for 18 years.
While heat transfer from a shot putt to a marble may be near instantaneous, I doubt the same could be said for transfer between air and ocean. Fortunately, I don’t foresee the hypothesis being put to the test.
BdtP, perhaps it already has been put to the test – as in the 1975 to 2000 increase in air temps taking several years before the ocean heat absorption rate got to the point that the air temps stabilized.
Depending on what happens such as a volcanic eruption and the temperature difference between the air and water, some transfer close to the surface could happen very quickly, but it could easily be decades or centuries for heat to make it to the deep ocean. That is why CO2 often peaked 800 years AFTER the temperature went up in ice cores.
The best thing about the deep oceans is that there is very little actually know about them despite them covering large parts of the planet , therefore you can claim they hid , UFO’s , lost cities and ‘missing heat ‘ knowing you cannot be proved wrong .
Now normally that approach is rejected has worthless within science , but remember Trenberth desire to reverse the null hypothesise and climate ‘sciences’ settled science claims and you can see what is unacceptable in any other field of science is perfectly acceptable within climate ‘science’ . Which in my view ,given the behaviour of its ‘prophets’ , has as much right to be called a ‘science’ has feeling peoples bumps on their head to tell you their IQ does.
The attempt at reversing the null hypothesis was really just Trenberth admitting he knows he’s wrong and deciding that wrecking the scientific method was better than wrecking his pay packet.
And speaking of Lost Cities, did you see this in the Telegraph?
You’ve pretty much nailed it , You can hide any number of imaginary threats where no-one can actually look , personally I thought Trenberth could have tried little harder and included UFOs and Lost Cities in His scary stories on sentient and malevolent heat just to give it a bit more zing , something like :
First he could not find it. The he said after a lull it would go boo!
If this did happen, it certainly would not be from the deep ocean. Extra heat does not just get together and decide to bite you all of a sudden. It would be way too dilute. (And Trenberth knows this as well as he has said that some heat is permanently lost that may have ended up in the deep ocean.)
” I thought Trenberth could have tried little harder and included UFOs and Lost Cities in His scary stories”
Great idea for satirical sci-fi novel. The evil humans neglect their planet with their wicked ways and the deep oceans heat up, angering the merfolk and ocean dwelling aliens, who then team up with “the team” on the surface to fight back at the evil corporations and their private armies who have been secretly ruling the world.
Quite so. It is little appreciated that the Illuminati have placed giant bar-radiators in the depths of the ocean in an attempt to create definite Global Warming, thus justifying their attempts to create a World Government (capitals optional). The last thing they want is a scientific investigation of the ocean depths!
Why is the second year in a row the Pacific does not give heat over the North America? Because the circulation is shifted over the the Bering Strait. How will be your next winter?
Extremely fundamental and valuable point: if the oceans have warmed by x degrees, their maximum potential of warming the atmosphere is also x degrees C. Nicely explained.
My take from that point is that there is no way that heat “hidden” in the deep oceans can come back to suddenly warm the atmosphere, since it is now at a lower temperature than the atmosphere.
Seems to me like a v. good point.
I can never figure out how this supposed extra heat gets down into the deep oceans. Leaving aside the obvious objection of “heat rises”, if currents take the heat down then what mechanism allows the heat to be left down there, but not nearer to surface?
Trenberth is fortunate that there are few or no direct readings of deep ocean temperatures, possibly more important he is extremely lucky there are no reliable records to provide inconvenient data.
I would imagine exactly that happens at 4 degrees. Heat rising would presuppose that there is an upward force once the temperature rises above that level. Even within the heavier saline flows of the deep oceans the heat within, if above 4 deg, will rise to the top and start to transfer its heat into the next layer by surface mixing and conduction.
Or have I over simplified my opinion
Mwh
If the deep oceans are 3 deg C then heating them one degree will cause sea level to drop because water is more dense at 4 thab3 degrees.
Heating another degree will bring sea level back to where it is now. So another ‘dire prediction’ bites the dust.
So two degrees of all-globe warming will bring sea level back to where it is now. And that might take 12,000 years. Well haul up the red flag and turn on the sireeeen.
Trenberth’s heat is not missing. It is also not in the clouds or the ocean. It is in outer space. Instrument inaccuracies and imprecise adjustments easily explain any total discrepancies in measurements.
@Crispin in Waterloo
Instrument inaccuracies and imprecise adjustments easily explain any total discrepancies in measurements.
———————————————
That means heat is “Not missing”, means it “never was”.
As the old saying goes, “What happens on the abyssal plain, stays on the abyssal plain.”
It’s called the thermohaline circulation. Seawater density depends on temperature and salinity, and does not have a maximum density at 4ºC (that’s only true for fresh water), for any given salinity the maximum density is at the freezing/melting point.
Thank you! Here is more information:
Ocean water with all of its salt is densest at its freezing mark of -1.94 C. See:
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Water/density.html&edu=high
This might interest you by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
You can’t warm just the oceans, they are not isolated in a thermos bottle. They are in direct contact with the earth (i.e. the bottom of the ocean). If you think the oceans are going to warm, then a lot of that heat is also going to flow into the earth and warm it too. Lots of mass there.
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I understood that the underlying earth is already a heat source for the bottom of the ocean – i.e. it’s already warmer, from internal heat.
Where the bottom of the ocean contacts the underlying earth, the temperature is the same. Then the deeper you go in the earth, the hotter it gets (radioactive decay and all that….) But the earth also acts as an insulator, which is what keeps the core from boiling the oceans, but it works both ways. Heat can flow in either direction. If you claim that the oceans warmed one degree, then heat must flow into the earth, which used to be one degree cooler.
The point is, it is invalid to assume that the interface between the oceans and the earth is a perfect insulator.
I am not saying Trenberth is right, nor am I saying he is wrong. But if he is right, it will actually benefit us. As for the bottom of the ocean also warming, that would be true and it just makes my case stronger.
There is evidence this hypothetical ocean “retardation” of air temperature changes occurs in real life.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/04/climate-change-not-so-global/
Thank you for confirming my point.
I don’t understand the first bit. You are saying that heat is a thing rather than an attribute of something else ?
Heat can flow through objects. Heat can alter the physical characteristics of some objects, for example you can change the tensile strength and the brittleness of iron depending on what temperature you heat it to and how fast and at what temperature you quench it in oil. So is heat a thing instead of an attribute? How about energy? Joules is the quantity for energy. Heat units are called temperature. If I raise a 10Kg mass by one meter, it has gained potential energy, but you don’t see the potential energy, but you can feel it if you drop it on your foot.
I probably shouldn’t write when it is well past my bedtime.
Let me refresh everybody on the fundamental units used in physics. I can’t find my original copy so I will just write a short list:
1. Candela
2. Mol
3. Temperature
4. Distance
5 Mass
6 Time
7 Electric Charge
In the US Customary system Force is used instead of Mass as a fundamental unit.
All other units are derived from these 7.
Heat is a ‘thing’ as you put it. Temperature is an attribute.
heat is not a thing. a thing can feel hot or a thing can feel cold
When I talk about “heat” I use it in the same sense as Trenberth with “heat going into the deep ocean”. The temperature of the mass goes up when heat is applied to a mass.
A nice explanation Werner! If I went out on a winter’s day, leaving a bath full of cold water and the central heating on, I would not expect to come home at night to find the house, freezing cold but the bath warm and ready to step into. Trenberth and his cronies must be desperate if this is the only explanation they can find for the “missing heat”. Common sense doesn’t get a lok in!
Bur imagine how ‘useful’ it is to be able to claim that it is a problem is not existence of ‘the heat ‘ but one of where it is. In one shot you got everyone to accept that their is ‘heat’ in the first place., so your increased CO2 increased heat claim is validated without ever having to show any increase in temperature.
The concept of heat transfer from a gas to a liquid at an interface of air to water is insane. Yes, it can be done if the air is 10s or 100s of degrees above the liquid temperature. That is not the situation on earth.
You can either do it with a large delta T or a large volume change at the surface contact. How do you get the cool sea breezes without heat transfer from the air to the water at the interface? As the article points out it is mass and heat capacity.
However if something such as air and water is in equilibrium at a certain air temperature, and if the equilibrium is then upset with the air becoming 2 C warmer by any means, then a new equilibrium is established eventually.
Not to get to deep in the old can of worms (Why, because it is usually argued in absolute sense like this…LWIR cannot heat the Oceans. Counterpoint, yes it can.) A more scientific question to answer is how much of the additional LWIR is used up in evaporation, and acceleration of the water cycle, verses somehow transporting itself to the deep oceans as heat>
Of course, besides LWIR, there is always conduction between two surfaces.
Werner, of course, but that is a small part of the picture. SW radiation penetrates up to 800′. The residence time of the energy is cogent to the warming potential. (Think about that one for a bit)
The GHE is predicated on the same principle. LWIR eergy leaving the surface towards space is redirected to stay in the atmosphere, or even go back to the surface. In the mean time (residence time) incoming TSI continues, thus more total energy in the system (atmosphere-land-oceans) Of course if that same GHG molecule receives conducted energy, and directs it to space, the residence time is shortened and the GHG is cooling, (Warren, if you have a engineering format analysis on how much additional GHG CO2 molecules cool vs. warm at disparate elevations and concentrations in the atmosphere, I would love to see it)
The residence time of SW radiation entering below the ocean surface is not infinite, (but up to 800 years as energy can never be destroyed) but relative to the portion (what is the portion, that is the question) of LWIR absorbed in the latent heat of evaporation, and sent up towards space, it almost is.
Water Vapor in clear sky conditions can and does limit surface insolation.
There is currently far more questions then answers, and many of the right questions are not even being asked.
True, and I believe that one reason that lots of sunspots mean more warmth is that the extra UV penetrates deeper into the oceans and with more energy.
Yep. I’ve never seen the warmies even attempt to answer the statement “so we have a negative feedback that reduces warming by 1000x?”
I see a bit of a problem in assuming that the oceans and atmosphere are uniform bodies. The natural variations in heat distribution are what makes “global average temperature” a non sequitur. As I understand the AGW argument, deep ocean upwelling near the poles actually brings water to the surface that is far warmer than the local atmosphere. When sea ice covers the water, less heat can be transferred to the atmosphere. When ice is absent, more heat is transferred to the atmosphere. This process can explain the warming of surface temperature measurements around the Arctic in recent decades.
So the fact that the deep oceans have (for human time frames) an infinite heat sink capacity does not necessarily mean that the deep oceans will therefore prevent “global” warming. While your overall point is important, I suspect the official response will be that it is irrelevant.
However is Trenberth not in effect claiming the oceans prevented global warming over the last 18 years?
How can “heat” go deep into the ocean unless it’s very cold/dense? Seems more like a process of storing cold (compared to avg global sea-surface temps) than storing heat.
This might interest you by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
I’d just like to make the observation, in an amateur psychology sort of way, that there appear to be people ( Greens ) who seem to think that the ” Everything that is to be seen ” is some benign creation which humans just need to fit in with for everything to be all nice and cuddly. Whereas it may be that humanity is hanging on to reality by it’s fingernails as say a tiny, tiny speck of dust on a bowling ball and is fortunate to have survived in this temporary peaceful time.
On the other hand why are all these massive carved structure lying about ? Why do guys spend their entire lives sat in meditation ? Why do people think human consciousness is a special thing?
Or should we adopt a “fvck you, nature” attitude and go for universal domination ?
I believe things were created this way to allow us to use the hydrocarbons now and produce more CO2 just when that was required to feed so many more people.
Heidi de Heat and Heidi de Klein should get together and compare notes. They might find they have a lot in common.
Since the “forcing” mechanism from CO2 (DWLIR) is fully absorbed at 1 micron and does not penetrate at depth, there is zero chance changes in CO2 would effect deep ocean temperature by .1 degree in a billion years. As Willie Soon would attest, it is the sun.
For the life of me, I can’t understand how this CO2 fairy tale survives. It is the “hands up, don’t shoot” meme of science.
The marble and shot put analogy doesn’t quite work. There you are talking about the temperatures after the system has come to equilibrium. That is never the case for ocean or atmospheric temperatures. As such, the claim that the deep oceans would have to warm by 10C to affect the atmosphere doesn’t make sense.
Of course, the heat capacities of the oceans and atmosphere are right, but differentiating between static and dynamic systems is important.
Yes, I was assuming a closed system that reached equilibrium. I am aware of many simplifying assumptions, but that does not change the main point that if heat is indeed going into the deep oceans, we have nothing to worry about for thousands of years.
You can’t heat the deep parts of the ocean and not heat the intervening layers. Sorry, you actually can. You use ‘heat pipes’. Good luck designing one that is effective over a kilometre. I am not aware of these being widely distributed over the ocean so I will make the assumption that it is not possible to bypass various surface levels of the ocean and heat the deeper parts.
This might interest you (Alex) by Dr. Spencer:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/
Para 4.
“Answer: The marble would go up in temperature by 1.0 C and the affect on the shot put would not be measurable.”
Typo: effect.
Bruce Cobb@5:04 Like it!
“In addition, the upward sloping blue line at the top indicates that CO2 has steadily increased over this period.”
But you have the wrong relationship of CO2 to temperature.
Try: δCO2/δt = λT
i.e. relate the rate of change of CO2 concentration to temperature. Like this.
It shouldn’t need pointing out that despite consumption of fossil fuels accelerating, the rate of change of CO2 has remained static (i.e. has not accelerated) over the hiatus period either. But there are some who must believe that the Mt Pinatubo and Mt Hudson eruptions sequestered CO2. Or the Amazon basin, etc. held its breath for a couple of years. Maybe all SUVs, planes and powerplants were mothballed but I can’t say I noticed that 🙂
And the Amazon basin has only about 6% peat soils by area, with the bulk of the watershed consisting of lateritic soils with minimal humus/leaf litter layer. If the organic component of the soil does not increase, and you have a mature rainforest/jungle in steady state, then there cannot be any carbon sequestration. You might ask about the presence of dissolved organic compounds in the run-off water. The little literature I have found indicates this is insignificant.
The example of the shot put and the marble is way oversimplified. The atmosphere is a gas and that makes counter intuitive things possible.
With a heat pump I can take BTUs from the ground and put them into my house. The ground will hardly cool at all and my house will be toasty warm. In fact, my house will be quite a few degrees warmer than the ground.
In theory it is possible that the atmosphere could warm by more degrees than the ocean cools. I think Dr. Trenberth’s problem is to show a mechanism whereby that could happen.
Unless you’ve invented a revolutionary technology, your heat pump requires quite a bit of energy from an external source. Where would that come from in Earth’s climate?
If Dr. Trenberth can’t answer that then we don’t have to worry about any heat hiding in the ocean depths.
To put a finer point on that, according to the 2nd law, WORK is required. Not mere energy. That’s the critical difference that sinks the theory that the heat is going to come springing out of the deep ocean spontaneously.
Since heat pump relies entirely on the phase change temperatures (and pressures) of the transport medium you will need to translate that into the real world of natures phase change temperatures( and pressures).
Reminds me of this (First clip, just replace “car” with “heat”);
Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
–
First remember that there is nothing happening today that hasn’t already happened many times before. There is simply no evidence that anything related to the overall earth climate is changing any differently that it always has.
Second, do the math. Mr. Brozek does the basics for us here, and he makes it clear. Get the facts. Do the math. There is no denying that humans just cannot control the weather.
If the oceans are now absorbing the heat that the land was previously, we should see recent increases in temperature on the islands isolated by ocean water such as Aruba or Hawaii. After all, these island temperatures are highly moderated by ocean temperature. I would be willing to study this further with several on-site visits with a suitable grant.
Spot on! This has always perplexed me about people who worry that “heat is going into the oceans”.
1. Even if your worst assumption about the heat uptake is right, it is causing almost imperceptible rise in temperature due to the huge heat sink effect of the oceans. I made that argument on Tamino’s blog a couple of years back and he did not have an answer – just ignored the point.
2. Most of the heat energy (aka Infrared) directed at the sea surface simply causes evaporation, whereby the heated water molecule ends up in the air, not the sea.
3. It is sunlight, not the atmosphere, that heats the ocean. Solar short wave UV radiation penetrates the sea and is absorbed as it passes through the upper layers. So it is more likely that if the ocean is rising in temperature it is caused by a reduction in cloud cover (and hence an increase in UV reaching the sea) rather than long wave IR back radiation from the atmosphere which cannot penetrate further than the top fraction of a millimeter
In fact reduced cloud cover is a rather better explanation for the warming seen since the 1970s than CO2 as it is a good explanation for rising ocean temperatures as well as rising air temperatures over land whereas the “greenhouse effect” can only ever explain warming over land, and then only if you include massive positive feedback effects.
In a rational world we would be directing research grants into the study of ocean circulation patterns and long-term changes in cloud cover rather than trying to stretch the tiny extra greenhouse effect from fossil fuel emissions to cover the large swings in temperature seen over the last 150 years.
Warmer ocean temperatures have effects on the weather, as anybody living in California during an El Nino will testify. But it is always a contrast between warm and cool that causes it. The absolute temperature is irrelevant. If the whole of the ocean and atmosphere the world over was one uniform temperature then there would be no weather! There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the weather on the Earth can be just as bad, if not worse, in a colder world as in a warmer world. After all we get “winter storms” don’t we?
It is the failure of these AGW quacks to recognize the logical outcome of their arguments that makes me weep for the death of science.
For the “heat is in the oceans” claim, standard logic says:
A. CO2 traps heat and generates DWLIR (according to IPCC quacks)
B. Heat from DWLIR is stored in the ocean
C. DWLIR cannot penetrate below 1 micron
D. Visible Sunlight is the only force that can warm the ocean
Thus,
There is no missing heat
A is false. CO2 does not “trap heat”
The sun and clouds determine temperature and CO2 is a chimera.
Essentially, the “heat is in the oceans” claim proves there is no AGW as defined by the IPCC.
TLM, you have made the points that I was going to make, and I think they are extremely important, as is Werner Brozek’s point. I would just add one more item to the list, using Brozek’s analogy. All of the warmer that can occur due to CO2 increases must originate in the atmosphere. Right now, they would have us believe that the marble is heating the shot put despite the fact that the marble has not increased in temperature. That clearly is impossible. Any increase in the ocean temperatures now must come from direct heating from the sun, and is not CO2 related. Honestly, this argument in it’s entirety pretty much disproves AGW theory. CO2’s effect on planetary temperatures has been wildly over-estimated.
If air can heat water how come they have to heat their swimming pools in Phoenix when it’s 105 F? That pool loses heat through evaporation a hundred times faster then the sensible heat of the air heats it. It’s the water vapor cycle that runs the climate, CO2 has abut as much impact as a bee fart in a hurricane.
http://www.writerbeat.com/articles/3713-CO2-Feedback-Loop
I grew up in Arizona in both Phoenix and Tucson and in summer no one heated their swimming pools, we wanted them cool, for crying out loud. If it is hot outside and the pool is warm, it is yucky.
By the way, evaporation of water to cool was the main way to cool homes back in the 1940-1960’s. The added bonus was, the air was more humid inside when humidity was near 0.
But during the monsoon season, it would be sweaty, of course. We used to cool the inside of mom’s station wagon via hanging towels in the window (she had a string screwed in above the windows for this) and getting these wet periodically and the wind blowing into the car would be cool.
I’m a huge fan of Captain BeeFart.
There are a number of projections on where the world’s population will level off. The UN says 2100 while others, such as Joseph Chamie, former director of the United Nations Population Division, disagree and argue it will peak before that. Sanjeev Sanyal, Global Strategist for Deutsche Bank, says it will peak at 2050. Our co2 output may well head south along with population THIS century. Then we will have to face other problems.
Basically, the oceans warm slower than the air and by extension, the land masses and then cools slower, too. Therefore, it is a ballast that prevents our planet from being like the moon or Mars which heats fast when the sun shines and becomes bitter cold very rapidly when the sun sets.
There is no ‘missing heat’. This is why we look to land masses to detect sudden directional changes in temperature. If the Pacific Ocean is still sort of warm while Hudson Bay doesn’t see any ice melt in summer, this means we are going into another Ice Age.
This is why tracking Ice Ages via tracking the Pacific Ocean is stupid. That doesn’t cool until long after the Ice Age has begun to grip the North American Continent and is reflecting heat from the sun back into space due to all the white ice covering many thousands of square miles.
“The oceans would act as a huge heat sink and would warm by 0.010 C once equilibrium was reached.”
repeat: once equilibrium was reached, once equilibrium was reached, once equilibrium was reached
Granted, that may take 800 years. And since things are always happening and not standing still, we will never reach equilibrium. However the first 5 degrees would be lost to the oceans very quickly. And/or it would melt a lot of ice quickly.
No-one seems to take into account the transport of water by the deep ocean currents which have been quite well surveyed.
OK. Let’s take them into account. What might they be doing?
Moving large quantities of cold water long distances at seabed level.
A question for grammar enthusiasts: should the title use the subjunctive form of the verb?
It Would Not Matter If Trenberth Were Correct …
I say “yes.”
If you disagree, could you kindly explain your answer. Thanks.
Yes. That bothered me, too, but I didn’t want to quibble.
Using the indicative mood, as the head-post does, is grammatically coherent but it conjures up a scenario that is slightly different from what the subjunctive would suggest.
“…if Trenberth was correct…” would indicate a point in the past, that is viewed as finite for some reason;
for example, the occasion on which he declared his opinion, or perhaps the fact that he has since changed his opinion. (unlikely, I’ll admit). In any event, it’s in the past and only the speculation as to whether he was right is taking place in the present.
The subjunctive is appropriate when it refers to an ongoing, hypothetical situation that persists till the present moment. Trenberth still believes what he believed before (more fool, he).That is the main use of the subjunctive mood; to give a flavour of uncertainty.
Other European languages employ it much more than English does.
The equation contains specific heat C but where is the correction for the water content, assuming relative humidity of 80%?
The specific heat capacity of water vapour is 1846. If we assume 3% of the air is water vapour, then the specific heat capacity rises to 1026 from the 1000 I used. It does not affect the basic thrust of my argument.
RSS Update:
The RSS anomaly for February was 0.328. As a result, the average for January and February is 0.348 and the ranking stays at third. However the time for a period of a slope less than 0 increases to 18 years and 3 months.
UAH Update:
The UAH anomaly for February was 0.296. As a result, the average for January and February is 0.324 and the ranking also stays at third.
Could we just simplify the ocean heat question by saying that during the 30 yr warm cycle it releases heat and during the 30 yr cool cycle it absorbs heat. Dr Bill Gray explains how heat is buried during the cool cycle because of high salinity areas sinking even when they are warmer because of higher density. The current PDO cool cycle will contain less heat for the future because of the lower sunspot activity( total solar irradiance) if it continues long term. A big factor may be sulfur dioxide aerosol pollution from Asia reflecting solar radiation if pollution controls are not installed on all coal plants including 1200 planned for the future. Some scientists are saying aerosol pollution is causing cold winters in the USA plus volcanic activity which is hard to predict. We need models that incorporate all factors. Removing sulphates from the atmosphere after 1975 contributed to the warming but that is reversing now with Asian pollution?
These are good questions, but they are beyond what I am comfortable discussing.
Regarding this: “At the present time, the deep oceans are at about 3 C. Let us just for discussion sake assume it warmed by 0.1 C in 60 years. And let us further assume the average air temperature is 14 C. That would mean the deep oceans need to warm by about 10 C before they start affecting the air temperature.”
The oceans would not need to warm by 10 degrees C in order for the equatorial Pacific ocean upper layers to get warmer than they are now. Therefore, ocean warming less than 10 degrees C would result in El Ninos warming the atmosphere more, and/or La Ninas cooling the atmosphere less.
True. I was focusing on the “deep” part of Trenberth’s statement. I agree it is much more complicated. But does this have a huge affect on my basic argument and relative time?
Trenberth’s heat going into the deep oceans is contradicted by the IPCC’s latest report. The models did not underpredict warming in the oceans, and instead may have overpredicted, particularly for the deep oceans. So the missing heat cannot be there.
Crispin in Waterloo said on March 6, 2015 at 4:26 am:
“If the deep oceans are 3 deg C then heating them one degree will cause sea level to drop because water is more dense at 4 than 3 degrees.
Heating another degree will bring sea level back to where it is now. So another ‘dire prediction’ bites the dust.”
This statement of thermal contraction/expansion of water is only true for fresh water. Sea water expands with increasing temperature throughout all temperatures above 0 C.
A rise from 3 to 4ºC in ocean water will give a reduction in density of 0.01%, at an average depth of 4000 ft that would be about a 4 foot rise.
And should that happen over the next 600 years, we should be able to cope with it.
Heat going into the deep ocean is just an attempt to keep the case for climate alarm alive. I agree with Dr. Richard Lindzen, “So it is unsurprising that great efforts have been made to ramp up hysteria, even as the case for climate alarm is disintegrating”.
If heat can go into the ocean it means that it can also come out during the warm cycles which makes the skeptics case that it was not just Co2 warming the planet. It was 2 oceans in warm PDO and AMO cycle at the same time plus other factors like the Sun and cooling pollution removal. Co2 being just a small part.
4.13 x 10^17 joules / KM^3. What does that number represent? That is the energy it takes to convert one cubic kilometer of continental ice from -30 oC to water at 4 oC
Useful information:
heat of fusion of water = 334 J/g
heat of vaporization of water = 2257 J/g
specific heat of ice = 2.09 J/g•°C
specific heat of water = 4.18 J/g•°C
Step 1: Heat required to raise the temperature of ice from -30 °C to 0 °C (for temp see average profile temp Antarctica) http://www.pnas.org/content/99/12/7844.full Use the formula
q = mc?T Per Kg 1000 x 2.09 x 30 = 62700 Joules
Step 2: Heat required to convert 0 °C ice to 0 °C water
q = m•?Hf Per Kg 1000 x 334 = 334000 Joules
Step 3: Heat required to raise the temperature of 0 °C water to 100 °C water
q = mc?T per Kg 1000 x 4.18 x 4 = 16720 Joules
Total -30 oC ice to +4 oC water per Kg = 413420 Joules / KG
Where
q = heat energy
m = mass
c = specific heat
?T = change in temperature
?Hf = heat of fusion
One metric tonne of water has a volume of one cubic meter (1 tonne water(1,000 KG = 1 m³)
One gagatonne of water has a volume of one billion cubic meters, or one cubic kilometer.(1 Gt water = 1 km³)Of course, one gigatonne of ice has a greater volume than one gigatonne of water. But it will still have a volume of 1 km³ when it melts.
413420 Joules/KG x 1000 KG/t x 1,000,000,000 t/KM^3 = 4.1342E+17 Joules / KM^3
But you say ‘DD’ how does this compare to the well known ‘Hiroshima bomb’ measurement.
By today’s standards the two bombs dropped on a Japan were small — equivalent to 15,000 tons of TNT in the case of the Hiroshima bomb and 20,000 tons in the case of the Nagasaki bomb. (Encyclopedia Americana. Danbury, CT: Grolier, 1995: 532.)
In international standard units (SI), one ton of TNT is equal to 4.184E+09 joule (J)
Hiroshima bomb TNT 15000 x TNT to Joules 4.18E+09 = Joules total 6.276E+13 =>
or 1 KM^3 of ice melt (4.1342E+17 / 6.276E+13) = # HiroBmb per Km^3 = 6587
That is correct. Place one Hiroshima bomb in a grid every 54 meters apart to melt the ice.
How about all that ‘Missing Heat’? Ocean heat content has increased by about 2.5 X 10E23 Joules since 1970 (IPCC AR5).
So 2.5 X 10E23 Joules / 4.1342 x 10E17 Joules/KM^3 = 604,712 KM^3
Well that sounds like a lot of ice, but Antarctica has between 26 and 30 million and Greenland has 2.5 million of those KM^3, so in reality it works out to 604,712 / 30,000,000 = 2.02% of the total. It was measurement error.
If you apply heat to an ice-water mixture, the temperature will stay at 0 C until all the ice is melted. So does that mean we have to wait for all of the ice in Antarctica to melt before temperatures can really shoot up? So besides the cold in the deep ocean, all of the ice in Antarctica would be another huge heat sink.
Slight Correction:
the density of ice at -30C is 920Kg per cubic meter, not 1000. Also the current ocean heat accumulation is closer to 3 X 10E23 Joules, not 2.5
So the estimate is off by about 10% and is actually about 660,000 cubic KM of ice equivalent. This is enough meltwater to raise the average sea level by 2 meters and if most of this mass is lost from west Antarctica, the additional gravity effect in North America would produce closer to 2.5 meters of sea level rise.
It should be noted here that the intensity of the energy being reflected down to earth from the surface of the atmosphere, called Top of Atmosphere Radiation Imbalance has increased from .2 Watts per meter Squared in 1965 to 1.1 Watts per meter Squared today. Therefore, the majority of the accumulated heat in the earth’s oceans occurred in the last two decades.
This increase in accumulation rates will continue so that the next 20 years will produce an additional 660,000 KM^3 of equivalent warming.
So where is the magic partial mirror Jai? Sounds a lot like diffusion confusion to me.
I’m not sure what you mean AJ?
“The title of the book, Storms of My Grandchildren, refers to the ferocious and stormy weather events that will occur next generation if fossil fuel use continues in the way it has.” –James Hansen
If his Lysenkoism continues to infect Science the way it has, Hansen should be calling his book Stormtroopers of My Grandchildren
The salient point in this to me, and obvious to any thermodynamicist, is that even if the atmosphere could transfer heat to the oceans, there is a minimum of three orders of magnitude amounts of heat capacity in the heat sink – making it appear as nearly infinite in its ability to absorb atmospheric heat.
Of course, if you think that a couple of degrees of air temperature can lead to calamity, then all of these animals roaming the earth today evolved in a relatively short period when you consider that the Holocene Interglacial Period is only about 12,000 years to date. What happened to all those tasty animals from the deep freeze of the Pleistocene Epoch? Oh yea, buffalo burgers for everyone!
“is that even if the atmosphere could transfer heat to the oceans”
What is all this “even if” business? Since we have countless observations of sub surface temperature anomalies which show this happening all the time.
Recognizing that I’m referring to averages, the overall average air temperature is lower than the overall average sea water surface temperature. Since heat flux is directly related to the differences in temperatures of fluids in direct conflict, your discussion regarding sub-surface temperature anomalies is meaningless. You are proposing that that heat can flow countercurrent to flux. Silliness on your part, and betrays a general lack of understanding thermodynamics.
contact, not conflict… A Freudian I suppose.
Nitschke:
You forgot the sarc tag.
Have you invented the perpetual motion machine?! I suggest you patent it right away!/sarc
What I am saying is that if the deep ocean goes from 3 C to 4 C, it will not affect the atmospheric temperature.
Werner, I am calling out Nitschke on his insistence that heat can flow from colder fluids to hotter fluids. How can the atmosphere, a colder fluid transfer heat through the ocean’s surface, which is a warmer fluid?
The net heat transfer is always from hot to cold unless work is done on the system. But keep in mind that above open waters at the poles, very different things may happen than at the equator depending on whether the air or ocean is colder.
UAH update:
Version 5.5 is officially gone. You cannot see the numbers on any website but you can see the numbers to December 2014 on WFT. Its period of no slope was an even 10 years according to Walter Dnes.
With the February numbers for version 5.6, the time for no slope decreases from an even 6 years to 5 years and 11 months.
(In case you missed the earlier update for RSS: The time for a period of a slope of less than 0 increases by a month to 18 years and 3 months.)
Hello Werner,
Thanks for this month’s update.
The negative slope on UAH V 5.6 is looking increasingly precarious. It’s only by selecting a start date sometime in 2009 that you can find a negeative slope, and another year or so of similar anomalies to those of January and February will see it disappear altogther.
The RSS negative slope will survive from 1997 until well into 2016, unless there is an increase in the monthly anomalies to around 0.4 deg C.
See:
http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
The slope is still negative to February 2010 so we have a ways to go on version 5.6.
Considering ocean heat certainly complicates what to expect for near-surface temperatures. But two points to keep in mind. The oceans receive most of their heat from direct solar radiation (low albedo) and little from the atmosphere. However, ocean surface temperature can influence atmosphere temperature. The big unknown is the degree of ocean mixing and the time of that mixing. Without understanding details of the ocean’s influence, it is difficult to predict future surface temperatures.
“http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/08/how-deep-ocean-warming-can-bypass-the-surface/”
With all due respect to Roy spencer, all he is saying here is, “Well, if the ocean mixed, and I have no idea if it does or not, then it could warm the bottom water.”
Quite so, Dr. Spencer, quite so.
Werner, your “shot put” .vs. “marble” analogy is quite apt. Now, if you expand it just a bit you would find that the thermal capacity of the Oceans is more like the volume of an “Astrodome” and the thermal capacity of the “greenhouse gases” is more like a “spit ball”. If all of the gases in the atmosphere (i.e. those that absorb IR radiation and those that do not) cannot “budge” the temperature of the Ocean’s what person of sound mind would believe that the “IR absorbing” gases could raise the temperature of the Oceans by 30 some degrees all by themselves ????
Technically speaking the mass of the mosquitoes striking the windshield of an 18 wheeler barreling down an interstate highway at 70 mph does “force” the velocity of the truck to change, but who in their right mind accepts that the total mass of the mosquitoes “determines” the velocity of the vehicle ??? Substitute temperature for velocity and “backradiation” for mosquito mass and you can quickly see that the whole “GHE” hypothesis is, at best ,“seriously flawed”.
Do you have a source for “iron marbles”? I seem to have misplaced a few of mine and it seems like solid Iron ones might be a good long lasting replacement, ha ha ha.
Cheers, KevinK.
Go to a junk yard and get ball bearings with the size of steel marbles that you wish. Then smash the ball bearings on the sidewalk about 20 times or until it breaks. Then you have the steel marbles. I remember doing that as a kid.
Hadsst3 Update:
Hadsst3 just came out for February and with a value of 0.417 the average is 0.429 it remains in second place. There is no flat period worth mentioning.
(So all three February values so far (UAH, RSS, and Hadsst3) are lower than January, but not low enough to change the ranking from January.)
In principle the “missing heat” is the supposed amount of the man-made warming, the AGW, or the warming effect due solely to man, which actually we fail to measure anywhere or see it anywhere in atmosphere, where it should be if it was real.
Now, the likes of Mann and Trenberth, out of desperation are trying to claim that such heat has been buried in the depth of oceans, And in time will come somehow out and be a big problem.
Otherwise there is no case at all left for AGW.
The first problem is that even contemplating for a moment that such a thing has being buried, as claimed, there still should be, or should have being a measurement in the natural system of it’s birth, a significant “fingerprint” of such a “birth” . Also there should have being significant changes observed in regard to the transfer of that heat to the depths of oceans.
So basically the claim of “the missing heat gone to the depth of oceans” is a claim of “something buried kicking and a life while actually there is no sign of it ever being born”.
The second and the major problem with that claim is that according to the earth system natural variation, the natural functioning, the oceans/atmosphere coupling, there is so much that the oceans can sink heat from the atmosphere. There is a natural limit to it.
It is somewhere at ~0.4C (atmospheric warming) at a max for a period just about over a century, and at a min of a period just about a millennium.
Any more sinking than that will show as a non natural variation of SST in long term. An increase of SST clearly above the natural variation.
Coming around again to the point that if the oceans were sinking more warming, like in the case of AGW, still there should be some measurable AGW in the atmosphere, or there should still be some hotspot observed in the tropics, or at least there should have being enough SST variation ABOVE THE NATURAL EXPECTATIONS.
While the oceans have a play in the case of the hiatus, the impact is no big enough to explain the hiatus.
The hiatus means that there never was an unnatural accumulation of heat in the atmosphere, and now that still holds true, plus that possibly the atmosphere is losing heat to the space out there more than during the 0.8C warming period up to 1998.
The AGW stands for an amount of warming that never managed to be accumulated in the atmosphere, the real missing heat. Is already lost and never to show up. There never was an accumulation of such a warming in atmosphere.
The bigger problem seems to be that the atmosphere and the surface are in a cooling signal, towards the possible loss of even that observed 0.8C warming up to 1998.
Probably shortly, the missing heat will not consist only of the supposed AGW but also of the natural observed warming. It will grow and still missing..;-)
cheers
A change from 3.0 C to 3.1 C, if that actually happened, would not show a “significant fingerprint” of any type.
Ok, I could be wrong yes, but please do try to run the numbers that will drive the 3.0C to become a 3.1C.
And then tell me how much SST temp variation expected in such a case to be real, only the SST variation increment that should be there if such the case……forget about the hotspot and any thing else like that.
Let see what you come out with the numbers for SST.
cheers. .
To cause an increase of 0.1 C could be done in two ways. Using H = mcdt, H = 1.4 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/(kg C) x 0.10 C = 5.6 x 10^23 J.
Or it could come by Dr. Spencer’s method that I have alluded to several times. Or it could be a combination of the two.
Werner Brozek
March 7, 2015 at 1:15 pm
And what would happen if we were to raise the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere by 10.0 C? Answer: The oceans would act as a huge heat sink and would warm by 0.010 C once equilibrium was reached.
—————
Naturally the Earth’s atmosphere temperature does not raise more than ~4.5C for about a 10K years, the max climatic swing.
In climatic equilibrium that is at about 0.4C per millennium, in a transient climate it is at max for just about above 100years at ~0.4C. That is the natural relation of the oceans/atmosphere coupling as far as the natural exchange of energy concerned. Either way of the energy direction that is the natural limit.
At such as a condition, naturally, the SST variation is so small that for all purposes is considered as a constant.
A higher energy transfer in between atmosphere and oceans will result in a higher SST variation.
Strangely enough that is not observed even when considering the 0.8C warming of the last century, which is about the double of that natural transfer limit considered.
That is the main problem of AGW.
The explanation is simple, the oceans are not sinking any more heat than supposed to.
And the max atmosphere tolerance seems to be, at least for now, at ~0.8C (the double of the observed natural limit), and any other amount of heat, like the missing heat has being already thrown out there to the deep freezing space.
No any significant SST variation, neither for an AGW or a hotspot and neither for an extra oceans warming.
You see, we to a degree know the atmospheric long term temp swings, through observation of actual data, paleo climate data, and in the same time can calculate the oceans warming, or oceans temp swing, as per your above method.
And that is at ~4.5C for atmosphere and very probably at 0.0045C for the oceans, with a very little SST variation..
Any unnatural further swing, like in the man-made climate will produce a measurable change in the system, like a higher observed SST.
There can not be a man made atmospheric warming without the SST fingerprint,,,,,and same holds true if that warming had to be going down to the depths of the oceans.
Neither the atmosphere or the oceans will warm beyond the natural limit without it showing an impact on the SST.
cheers
Even the monthly variations in SST are relatively large for one reason or another. And animals have no trouble coping.
Werner Brozek
March 8, 2015 at 7:19 am
Even the monthly variations in SST are relatively large for one reason or another. And animals have no trouble coping.
————–
“Even the monthly variations in SST are relatively large”
Sorry Werner, but that is actually how some bright persons like you lose me some times.
The above selected has no any chance or meaning at all to be translated in the climatic terms, in the long term atmospheric behavior.
Monthly variation has not whatsoever a meaning, in its own, in the angle of climate and long term atmospheric variation.
Let me paste copy from my reply to you, as far as SST CONSIDERED:
”
—-
You see, we to a degree know the atmospheric long term temp swings, through observation of actual data, paleo climate data, and in the same time can calculate the oceans warming, or oceans temp swing, as per your above method.
And that is at ~4.5C for atmosphere and very probably at 0.0045C for the oceans, with a very little SST variation..
——-
Is a long term point of view, no days, no weeks , no month, no years, not even decades…… is in the scale of millennia, or at max in scale of centuries.
Let me correct my exact point of view.
For the sake of being politically correct I offered a ~4.5C atmospheric swinging in temps which will mean something like 0.0045C temp swing for the oceans if your calculating method applied.
But from my point of view that is even smaller, a ~0.3C atmospheric temp swing, which will make the oceanic temp swing at most a 0.003C for the same period. And if I would have to apply the CO2 impact in atmosphere that oceanic temp swing reduces even further in accordance to the atmosphere heat content.
It ends up to be no more than ~0.002C, for a time period of about 10k years in climate equilibrium, and for max possible in a time frame at about150 years, in a not climate equilibrium.
That 0.002C temp swing is very very little for any SST variation to be considered any other way than constant, in climatic meaning always, IN A LONG TERM VIEW POINT……..
In a climatic point of view it does not really matter how much the SST varies in daily weekly, monthly or even yearly scales, what matters is how much it varies in millennia or century scale, the long term variation.
It does not really matter, in long term and climatic term, how much energy is the atmosphere subjected to in hourly, daily, weekly or even monthly bases, either due to CO2 emission or any other cause/
What matters is how much of that energy is accumulated in the long term, during a longer term.
Please do forgive me if I may have come across as a bit “harsh” in this one..:-)
cheers
I am not sure I am following you. Where I live, the temperatures can go from + 30 C to – 30 C in 6 months. And people survive well. As well, people from my area often go to Hawaii in winter and thoroughly enjoy going from – 30 C to + 30 C in 7 hours.
Yet having an increase of even 4 C in 100 years is somehow bad? I would have no trouble adapting to a range from – 26 C to + 34 C if that happened next year.
@Werner Brozek March8 at 1:04pm
Hi again Werner.
First we not actually arguing or debating what the actual problem of climate change could or would be for us or other life species, either in the case of that being natural or man made, not at this point.
We are some how debating how proper and reasonable the claim of Trenberth is.
4C in 100 years is not even possible, let alone it begin contemplated as bad or not.
Let me correct for you the numbers in my previous reply to you, as I see now that maybe the error there may have lead you to consider a 4C warming for a 100 year period, instead of it being considered as supposed to at 0.4C for a ~100 years period.
The correction:
“It ends up to be no more than a ~0.002C, for a time period of about 10K years in climate equilibrium, and at
~0.0002C variation as max possible for a time period ~150 years in climate not in equilibrium.”
Sorry about that, especially if that is the case for your mentioned 4C variation in a 100 years.
Also, I see another error in my previous reply.
The ~0.3 C climatic swing is meant actually to be a ~3C climatic swing.
Sorry about that one error too.
Cheers
Werner
“That would mean the deep oceans need to warm by about 10 C before they start affecting the air temperature.”
The 3 C is average ocean temperature. Heat transfer between ocean and air occurs at sea surface where temperature can range from zero to 30 C seasonally and geographically.
“And what would happen if we were to raise the temperature of Earth’s atmosphere by 10.0 C?”
It’s not physically possible to heat the atmosphere by 10 C without heating the ocean simultaneously. Water absorbs longwave and shortwave IR and light. The atmosphere is largely transparent to light and shortwave IR. The ocean will warm first then transfer the heat to the atmosphere.
I certainly agree there. I was using that as a hypothetical example. However you may recall the meteor that flew over Russia a couple of years ago. Theoretically, we could have a HUGE number in a very short time and it may warm the atmosphere by a larger amount in a short time. But I will admit that is extremely unlikely.
Werner Brozek
March 7, 2015 at 7:41 am .
“However you may recall the meteor that flew over Russia a couple of years ago. Theoretically, we could have a HUGE number in a very short time and it may warm the atmosphere by a larger amount in a short time.”
————-
Yes of course, theoretically we could have a HUGE number in a very short time and a warming of the atmosphere by a large amount in a short time, in such impacts as you describe.
But theoretically the earth system and the atmosphere have evolved for billions of years together, since the moment this planet came to be till now, in a way that if atmosphere fails in it’s duty our planet will not look any different than the Moon.
The atmosphere exist and has evolved to deal with such external and internal impacts, similar to what you consider as above.
Yes, in the case as such, there will be expected havoc and disturbance in atmosphere for yearly or decadal scales, but if considering the atmosphere functioning as sufficient enough, then beyond and further than century period the atmosphere would have dealt with the problem and defaulted any extra energy and warming by throwing it out there from where it came from without allowing to accumulate and interfere with the internal earth system.
That I think is what actually we all underestimate when considering the atmosphere and it’s power and basic functioning.
Cheers
I believe that Le Chatelier’s principle applies on many levels. But do not forget that despite this, we have had ice ages.
Werner Brozek
March 7, 2015 at 1:06 pm
Thank you for all of your replies.
Appreciated a lot.
you say:
“I believe that Le Chatelier’s principle applies on many levels. But do not forget that despite this, we have had ice ages. ”
——————–
Yes of course, we have had ice ages, but when considering the numbers and the natural climatic swings, we do not have HUGE numbers in a very short time, but rather SMALL numbers in a very long time…:-)
thank you
cheers
Water is 1,000 times more dense than air. If the meteor hits the ocean, which is 70% of earth’s surface, more heat due to friction and impact will go to the ocean than atmosphere. Earth’s surface receives 1.2 x 10^17 joules of solar energy every second. The Russian meteor released energy equivalent to 500 kilotons of TNT or 2 x 10^15 joules. This is equal to 0.02 second worth of solar energy. The heating effect of meteors is negligible. If a giant meteor stirs up enough dust upon impact on land, it might trigger global cooling from aerosols in the atmosphere.
Thank you! I should have thought of something better if such a thing exists.
Werner Brozek
Its so simple!
Thanks for so clearly summarizing basic thermal physics that I also learned in high school.
Beware the chick crying “The SKY is falling” after a leaf fell on her head!
C.S. Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Here is the modern version of “The sky is falling.”
McCarthy said the overall goal was to save the planet from rising sea levels, superstorms, and other climate-change catastrophes.
“Climate change is real. It is happening. It is a threat. Humans are causing the majority of that threat … the impacts are already being felt,” she said. “Climate change is not a religion. It is not a belief system. It’s a science fact. And our challenge is to move forward with the actions we need to protect future generations.”
See:
http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/head-of-the-epa-can-t-tell-sen-jeff-sessions-if-its-climate-models-are-correct.html
I have not seen much discussion of the fact that the extra solar heat from strong solar cycles was also buried in the ocean from approx 1945 to 1975 since the atmosphere failed to warm at that time also. In spite of Co2 rising rapidly after the post WW2 industrial buildup the cool ocean cycles overcame both solar and Co2 warming effects. As it will when the AMO cool cycle kicks in around 2020 along with the present cool PDO cycle . (currently in a temporary warm spike). When the PDO switched to warm cycle around the late 70’s it released the stored solar energy on top of 30 more years of strong solar cycles. Also cleaner skies from the introduction of the catalytic converter on cars in 1975 and the 80% collapse of the Soviet union industrial sector let the sun in too. Co2 being a minor factor compared to the aerosol pollution reduction. Now we see the buildup of sulfur dioxide again form Asia that could tip the balance to cool even more combined with possible increased volcanic activity. Perhaps Co2 will be considered a blessing someday if the planet cools since food production will suffer. Better models are needed that are not programmed by politicians. So if reducing pollution creates global warming you could say that it was partially man made warming along with a slight Co2 contribution of .2 Watts per sq meter per decade. You can see the extra warming on NASA temp maps around heavily polluted areas like Los Angeles that have since cleaned up a lot thanks to the catalytic converter. The best climate model is Mother nature which has been showing us for many years what affects the climate if people could only see through the politics. Even Prime minister Cameron has been taken in. One of my best friends who I have finally convinced to be a climate skeptic was just invited to have tea with him today so I am anxious to hear how that went.
Keep us posted. In the end, it depends on whose facts and which people he decides to believe. If a seed of doubt is planted, that would be a good start.
Apparently my friend wrote to Cameron about widening the TV debates from one to 3 and was invited to meet with him about it. I have advised him as a new skeptic not to bring up climate change on the air ( he is a part time TV commentator) as he has not put in the thousands of hours that some like myself have. It took years of information to turn him around from being a global warming believer. It is such a hot button issue that one asks for instant abuse and better be prepared. It is a shame that such an important issue is so politicized. The world economy could be affected by the future climate and the funds spent on it that could be in the wrong direction. I hear Europe spends 20% of their trillion Euro budget on it which is hard to believe but might explain some of the struggles there. For every green job some countries lost 4 others. Spain”s unemployment is massive after a huge green expansion. And our government wants to go down the same road. Perhaps we should be building ice breakers and snow plows if Asia keeps up the pollution and sunspots remain low. Not to mention the coming cool ocean cycles of course.
Europe is now patching the economic problem with money printing that failed to reach main street here and mostly benefited the upper echelons. Nobody seems to learn from history. Apparently the Fed here could have sent every family a check for $50,000 to every family instead of printing trillions of dollars. Not that I would advocate that much stimulus. A much smaller amount might have done the trick to boost the economy but I am on to economics now, another favorite subject.
Thank you. I assume no debates are against Lord Monckton on global warming.
I don’t think Cameron would ever dare to debate Lord Monckton and who knows if Cameron really believes in the Co2 scare. So many politicians are pandering to the warming believers to retain their vote and sometimes have no choice if they want to win elections. Until people are directly affected by the carbon tax like in Australia they will not wake up. Even people like Mitt Romney and Gov Christie have apparently caved in to the pressure. Meanwhile 40,000 people died in the cold weather this year in England and many more in Europe perhaps because they cannot afford the expensive energy costs on a limited pension. It is a choice of food or heat. Bjorn Lomberg has said that 15 million people have died in Europe this way in the last 12 years or so but this is hard to believe?
I can believe it. On the order of 10 million people die in Europe per year, so why not 15 million out of around 120 million killed by the Carbonari?
Catherine, I would be surprised if anyone checks for a response more than 24 hours after the initial comment.
[The mods recommend using the person’s full name – but exactly as it is written in their user_id, since it is hard to know how a person will search for replies to their comments. here, for example, you used Catherine, not Catherine Ronconi
.mod]
There is some blatant misuse of statistics here. If the 95% confidence levels over a certain period are e.g. -0.000 to 1.753, this does not mean it is 95% certain that no warming has occurred during that period. If anything, these numbers show that it is very likely that warming has occurred. So basically this post is refuting the argument that there has been ‘no warming for 18 years’. The numbers here show there has been!
The numbers you quote are for RSS. And they prove that there has been NO STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT warming since December 1992. That is over 22 years of not enough warming that the climate people have determined is necessary to be sure that warming has actually taken place considering all uncertainties in measurement. If you are not happy with this 95% number, then you need to take it up with Phil Jones.
As for RSS again, with the February numbers, the slope is slightly negative since December 1996 which is 18 years and 3 months of NO WARMING at all.
RSS is the only dataset that shows no warming trend since 1997, all others (Berkely, NOAA, HADCRUT4 etc.) do show a warming trend. So your capitalized ‘NO WARMING’ is not so obvious as you make it
If anything the numbers in the article above actually show that the statistical evidence for warming is a lot stronger than for stabilization, let alone cooling..
Oh and on top of that, ocean water measurements show definite warming over the same period. So all in all the claim that there has been NO WARMING for one or two decades is just not supported by measurements.
I did find it rather odd that you quoted the RSS number since you are correct that only RSS shows no warming since 1997.
But of the other 4, only GISS has no statistically significant warming for less than 15 years.
Here is what was said in a different document:
PDF document @NOAA.gov. For anyone else who wants it, the exact quote from pg 23 is:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
As for the ocean, even if we agree the whole ocean warmed by 0.1 C in 60 years, it is no big deal. That was the whole point of my article.
Aran,
Global warming has stopped. You don’t need error bars to see that [and note that this is not satellite data; if we use RSS, it’s even worse for the alarmist clique].
dbstealey,
There is a vast amount of observational evidence that disagrees with your claim. Surface temperatures are warming at a slower pace and heat uptake in the oceans has increased unabatedly.
Aran,
So, I provided verifiable, testable observations, and you provide… your assertion.
Give it up, pal. Obsevations trump baseless assertions every time.
Global warming has stopped, and all your self-serving assertions mean nothing. Go argue with the IPCC, they agree with scientific skeptics on this one.
dbstealey, I greatly appreciate your input, however WFT has been extremely lax in making changes so only Hadcrut4.2 is given which stopped in July. As well, Hadcrut3 and Hadsst2 are no longer being given, so their declining slopes are no longer true as they have not been updated. Even UAH, version 5.6 is not shown, but only 5.5 is shown and that stopped in December.
Unfortunately, only RSS is still valid to show a pause or decline on WFT, depending on your time period.
Walter Dnes wrote to WFT about this but to no avail so far.
I just picked those numbers as one example. Could have picked any.
Note that the article is relatively old (2008) and as for the quote, they say exactly the same. Zero trends are ruled out at 95% confidence level. I.e. the NO WARMING claim is not supported.
You have this wrong. See row 9 from the table. Four out of the five data sets are above 15 years indicating we cannot be sure enough there is no warming at all for the required time period to validate the models. So 4 out of 5 do support the no warming claim.
And yes, 2008 is old. And the goal posts have been moved. As a result, Santer talks about 17 years for certain things now.
One thing is very clear. The models are running way too hot. There is no catastrophic warming.
No. What the numbers in row 9 mean represent are the time periods over which there has been a 95% confidence interval that included 0 as a trend. As your numbers show, all these confidence intervals range from minus a very small value, say -0.010 to something like 1.5. This basically means that it is 95% certain that the trend is within those boundaries. Because almost the entire confidence interval is positive this still means that a warming trend is very likely. No longer 95% but something like 94.9%. This is something entirely different from supporting the no warming claim. With these intervals, no warming is still way less likely than some warming.
See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
“B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.”
What you say is very reasonable, but as Phil Jones says above, statistical significance has a certain meaning in climate science. I did not make the rules.
Think of a class test with 100 questions where the teacher decides you need a 50% to pass. If you get 49%, you fail.
Now if you think getting a -0.001 is cutting it too fine, something along the lines of getting 49.9% on a test and rounding it to 50%, that is another matter. But with these statistics, adding a month to a -0.001 month would make the negative number larger, so little is changed.
Note that Dr. McKitrick has slightly different times than Nick Stokes. The reasons why are above my head.
Keep in mind that only the satellites show “no warming” for more than a year. But all show no “no statistically-significant global warming” for over 14 years.
Aran,
Werner is correct.
Werner, your post basically reiterates my claim. Saying there is no statistically significant warming is something completely different from supporting no warming.
Again, all these numbers say is that the no warming claim cannot be definitely excluded. Nevertheless the numbers do show that a warming trend is much more likely than no warming.
If I make a claim that I cannot be certain the sun will rise tomorrow, this is not the same as a claim in support of the sun not rising tomorrow, it just leaves the option open. This is basically the same. We cannot be 95% certain there has been a warming trend, but that does not make a no warming trend a likely option. The numbers leave the no warming option open, but only extremely marginally.
dbstealey,
No he is not.
@ Werner and dbstealy, you are applying a common misuse of statistics: proof of the null hypothesis.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misuse_of_statistics#Proof_of_the_null_hypothesis
Here’s the description:
“In a statistical test, the null hypothesis (H_0) is considered valid until enough data proves it wrong. Then H_0 is rejected and the alternative hypothesis (H_A) is considered to be proven as correct. By chance this can happen, although H_0 is true, with a probability denoted alpha, the significance level. This can be compared to the judicial process, where the accused is considered innocent (H_0) until proven guilty (H_A) beyond reasonable doubt (alpha).
But if data does not give us enough proof to reject that H_0, this does not automatically prove that H_0 is correct. If, for example, a tobacco producer wishes to demonstrate that its products are safe, it can easily conduct a test with a small sample of smokers versus a small sample of non-smokers. It is unlikely that any of them will develop lung cancer (and even if they do, the difference between the groups has to be very big in order to reject H_0). Therefore it is likely—even when smoking is dangerous—that our test will not reject H_0. If H_0 is accepted, it does not automatically follow that smoking is proven harmless. The test has insufficient power to reject H_0, so the test is useless and the value of the “proof” of H_0 is also null.”
I.e. there not being enough evidence for warming (H_A) does not give any credibility to no warming (H_0).
Werner, you are correct again.
You’ve identified the reason that the temperature record is divided into tenths and hundredths of a degree, instead of showing a larger, more reasonable x-axis.
The error bars in those charts normally exceed a few hundredths of a degree — and tenths of a degree, for that matter. Aside from the problem of “adjusting” past temperatures [almost always showing scarier warming], there is the problem of trying to convince the public that a tiny, natural fluctuation represents man-made global warming.
That is plainly dishonest. “No statistically-significant global warming” means exactly what it says: There has been NO global warming. Period.
Next, satellites provide the most accurate temperature record we have, because they effectively take a snapshot of the entire globe [almost all of it, anyway], while other temp records are limited to land only, and similar problems.
If there was unambiguous global warming, scientific skeptics [the only honest kind of scientists] would alter their views to take new facts into account. That is the difference between skeptics, and climate alarmists: the alarmists try to make reality bend to their models, instead of vice-versa.
Pretty soon it will be twenty years with no global warming. What excuses will the alarmist crowd fabricate to explain that? If they were as honest as skeptics, they would simply admit that their original premise was wrong, and try to understand why. But scientific veracity is not in them as a group. Too much easy money has corrupted too many of them, I think.
Do you mean besides moving the goal posts?
I read that 15 years of no warming is very rare, but now that we have had that, there is a 25% chance it could go to 20 years. That actually does make some sense! It is hard to get 15 heads in a row, but once you have that, it is much easier to get 5 more heads in a row. And once we have 19 heads in a row, there is a 50% chance of getting 20 heads in a row.
“That is plainly dishonest. “No statistically-significant global warming” means exactly what it says: There has been NO global warming. Period.”
This is incorrect. You are applying a statistical fallacy. See my reply above.
When I say “no warming”, I mean the slope is basically 0 for the indicated period of time. I fully realize that this means there is a 50% chance of warming and a 50% chance of cooling.
When I say no “statistically significant warming” I mean that even though the slope is positive, we cannot be 95% sure warming is taking place.
See an earlier post of mine here that explains exactly what I mean:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/12/02/on-the-difference-between-lord-moncktons-18-years-for-rss-and-dr-mckitricks-26-years-now-includes-october-data/
No. Wrong again. The slope is not basically 0, this can be seen directly from the confidence limits you give. Also the 50%’s are not correct. No idea where you got them from.
You are correct that the data show we cannot be 95% sure of warming over that particular period, the value will be marginally below 95%.
In his last post, Lord Monckton says:
So he defines no global warming the same way I do, namely a slope of 0. If you or anyone else does not agree with this definition, that is your prerogative. But at least you know what I mean by “no warming”. As for the 50%, if you go to http://moyhu.blogspot.com.au/p/temperature-trend-viewer.html
you will see that when a slope is zero, there is a chance that the real value at the 95% point to be the same amount above the zero line as below. It is basically a matter of definition that assuming a normal distribution, the chances are 50% for higher and 50% for lower. What else could it be?
P.S. I just gave CL for the 95%, not the 50%.
For RSS this is true, for all the other datasets it is not. So claiming no global warming for 18 years is picking the one dataset that supports your claim and ignoring all the others. Your claim that 4 out of the 5 datasets you considered support the no warming theory is false. Only one does and only for a relatively short period.
There is simply no evidence in the data for a pause in warming. It does appear the rise of surface temperatures has slowed down (not stopped) recently, but the amount of heat stored in the ocean has increased, so the warming continues nonetheless. I realise you argue that ocean heating is not a big deal, but it is an indicator that the warming we have seen over the last decades has not slowed down recently.
True, only the satellites show no warming. One for about 18 years and the other for about 6 years. And 4 out of the 5 show no statistically significant warming for over 15 years.
[And 4 of the 5 surface temperature sets, correct? .mod]
Note also that the RSS dataset has been drifting away from the other datasets over the same period you’re addressing. See this post from a UAH scientist about this discrepancy:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/07/on-the-divergence-between-the-uah-and-rss-global-temperature-records/
Basically the cooling in RSS appears to be systematic and should be treated with caution.
Aran says:
For RSS this is true, for all the other datasets it is not.
Wrong again. Where do you get your misinformation?? How many datasets do you need?
Global warming has stopped. Deal with reality, if possible.
You’ve been spending way too much time at the pseudo-science blog SkS. Stick around here, and learn something. Werner Brozek knows a lot more than you do; you should take this opportunity to learn someting — if SkS han’t already colonized your mind with their anti-science nonsense.
Sorry! I meant 4 of the 5 that I am talking about, namely UAH, RSS, Hadcrut4 and Hadsst3. The one that is under 15 years is GISS.
On the other hand, version 6, when it finally comes, should bring us closer to RSS.
I guess we will just have to wait and see.
dbstealey
I get my ‘misinformation’ from this site. It is written in the article above that 3 of the 5 datasets show “The slope is not flat for any period that is worth mentioning.” the UAH shows a flat slope for 6 years, which is peanuts. You can find flat slopes of that duration at many places throughout the dataset, just as you can find slopes of 6 years that are steeper than the predicted warming.
Other than that I get my information from here:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
The discussion was about the claim of zero warming since 1997 (conveniently chosen year by Lord Monckton btw) and only RSS shows a zero trend for that period. All others are positive.
I don’t know what SkS is so I can’t comment on that. I am a bit worried about the scientific content here sometimes. I have seen errors in statistical inference (including by you and Werner), fallacies in argumentation and there is a lot of cherry-picking going on.
About reality: there is simply no statistically sound evidence for a stop in the total warming of the planet. Unless you know something I don’t, in which case please share. I am eager to learn.
[Monckton’s linear analysis does NOT “select” 1996-1997 as a starting year. It BEGINS at today’s date, just like every one of his series on this subject, then goes back as far a straight line fit extends. Today, that year (as it has been for a while) is 1996-1997 timeframe. NOTHING is “conveniently selected”. .mod]
As for the 4 of the 5 temperature sets: I have already explained why ‘no statistically significant warming’ is something completely different from ‘no warming’.
@mod: I was referring to Lord Monckton’s quote in the post from Werner at March 10, 2015 at 7:27 pm
Furthermore I would argue that ‘going back as far a straight line fit extends’ is a textbook example of convenient selection. He uses linear regression the find the best data point to fit his theory.
I could use the exact same kind of reasoning to claim that even the RSS data has shown an increase in temperature ever since the beginning of their measurements until today. I.e. warming for a whopping 35 years! Just simply going back as far as a rising line fit extends. Same technique.
NOAA says this:
”The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”
So please tell me exactly how you would go about finding out how to tell if this threshold has been crossed? With “no warming” for over 18 years, it is obvious that the period of “no statistically significant warming” is several years more, at least on RSS.
Gavin Schmidt has said that we will have another 5 to 10 years without warming but then the .extra .2 watts per sq meter co2 effect will kick in and overcome the natural cooling factors to resume the warming. I am not sure how he figures this will happen because both ocean cycles will be in cool mode by then and continue for quite some time. Sunspots are low for now of course and who can predict volcanic activity at that time or what Asia will do about cooling sulfate aerosol emissions. It is hard to make short term predictions of ten years let alone 50 yrs. How can anybody predict that far out?
I do not see how they can. But it gives political leaders a reason to act now.
Aside from Aran’s assertions, I want to poinbt out that the 1/10th and 1/100th of a degree division are not credible. They are used only because some of them can show a slight warming trend [although the most accurate — satellite data — shows global cooling].
The alarmist crowd just loves those tiny divisions. But they are meaningless. If global warming was happening like the alarmist crowd wants people to believe, then it would be very clear in the temperature record. As we know, it isn’t clear at all. That’s because there is no global warming.
Aran doesn’t have what it takes to be a scientific skeptic. He has preconceived, cherry-picked notions, and therefore he searches for factiods to support his belief — instead of being skeptical like any honest scientist.
The fact is that global temperatures have been amazingly flat for the past century and a half. Only in the addled minds of climate alarmists is there a problem.
There is no problem. Humanity and the biosphere is very fortunate to be living through a true “Goldilocks” climate. The alarmist contingent only sees the glass as half empty, never half full, based on their religious beliefs. But based on reality, there is no problem at all:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-lPGChYUUeuc/VLhzJqwRhtI/AAAAAAAAAS4/ehDtihKNKIw/s1600/GISTemp%2BKelvin%2B01.png
Aside from the ad hominems, your temperature graphs are a farce. You can make any change disappear by blowing up the y axis far enough. I actually came to this blog with an open mind, but it is these kinds of mistakes that make me want to leave. You accuse me of cherry-picking while you do so yourself in your first paragraph. You make inferences based on statistical fallacies. I came here looking for serious opposition to the currently widely accepted theories on climate change. I have received lots of and name-calling but I have not let that deter me. I’m beginning to doubt whether it is worth the effort to filter through all this hostility and posts that do not follow very basic scientific principles to find some actual serious and scientifically valid opposition.
Aran says:
You can make any change disappear by blowing up the y axis far enough.
Likewise, you can make any tiny, insignificant, and statistically meaningless fluctuations appear to mean something, when they don’t. As I wrote above:
…the 1/10th and 1/100th of a degree divisions are not credible. They are used only because some of them can show a slight warming trend [although the most accurate — satellite data — shows global cooling.
Despite decades of predictions by the alarmist crowd confidently stating that global warming would continue, and likely accelerate, it turns out that they were wrong. All of them. Even the IPCC admits that now [although they call it a “pause”].
When one side in a debate is 100.0% WRONG in every one of their scary predictions, honest scientists will admit that something was wrong with their basic premise. They will step back, and try to understand how and why they got it so wrong.
But the alarmist crowd doesn’t do that. Instead, they carefully select whatever factoids they can find that support their belief system — without ever admitting what everyone here knows, whether they will admit it or not: the man-made global warming conjecture was flat wrong.
So, why will you not admit that? More to the point: what would it take for you to admit that you were wrong from the get-go? It’s been eighteen years [or fifteen years, or ten years, depending on the database used] with NO global warming. Even über-Warmist Dr. Phil Jones admits that. In other words, it has been many, many years without the predicted global warming, even as CO2 levels have steadily increased.
What would it take for you to admit you were wrong? Twenty years without global warming? Arctic ice rising to previous levels? Or maybe a new great stadial, where glaciers cover Chicago a mile deep again? Really, what would it take? Pick a point. Because most everyone already knows you’re on the wrong track now. Constantly moving the goal posts back doesn’t help your credibility. Your conjecture was wrong, that’s all there is to it. You should be trying to figure out why, instead of always backing and filling.
Something was seriously wrong with your original premise. It is the job of skeptics to refute conjectures if possible, and the skeptic crowd has done that extremely well. There is nothing left of the original MMGW conjecture. In the event, it was flat wrong. You should be very happy about that — unless you are one of those feeding at the taxpayer trough. Then it would make sense to claim that global warming is chugging along as always.
It’s not. Global warming has stopped, despite incessant predictions to the contrary. Why won’t you admit it?
You are pretending that I made those predictions, which I did not. But I will answer your question anyway. I will admit that the idea of anthropogenic global warming is false if a) there is strong statistical evidence to disprove it or b) if there is another testable theory, based on sound scientific ideas that is able to explain observations better. At the moment it is the best we have, as far as I have seen. It is definitely not perfect.
As for a) the current pause or whatever you want to call it is by no means statistically significant. This could be due simply due to the fact that it has been too short. I know 18 years sounds long, but generally in climatology 30 years is the typical minimum timeframe in which effects have to observed. Before you go into cherry-picking accusations, this period is used in any field of climatology, so not only climate change and was already in use before the whole pause or whatever or ever, so Iḿ not trying to move the goal posts. Actually this period is one of the reasons that the first serious debates regarding climate change only started by the end of the 80s/early 90s, even though the signal was visible way before. Climate is measured over long periods.
FYI:
I have never claimed that the current models of global warming are perfect. I know very well that there are many unknowns and there is definitely room for improvement of our understanding. As a matter of fact I doubt whether something as complex as climate can even be modeled at all. Also I have admitted before that over the last period surface temperature has risen at a slower place, if at all. This is something that is not understood and has to be investigated. Note that it might still be a statistical fluctuation. Even 18 years is not that long, considering there have been several periods in the past where warming has been stagnant for over a decade, nevertheless the long term trend is still in line with anthropogenic global warming.
Note again that you keep on making the same mistake. 18 years of no statistically significant global warming is something completely different from no global warming.
Global temperatures.
One reason the climate debate is so acrimonious is that our government chooses to use the low tech thermometer database (red) that has many alterations. Unlike the high tech satellite data base (green) showing .2 deg C above normal. (1/5 deg C) With such a wide divergence in data how can anyone come to agreement? And yet NCEP which is part of our government weather service seems to disagree with GISS on their graphs too? It is hard for me to see 2014 as the warmest year which was mostly a warm spike in Pacific ocean temps. Why are they combining the ocean temps with land temps since the ocean Enso is so variable?
http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
I notice that this graph says it is NCEP government data but it is from Weatherbell which is associated with Joe Bastardi, a well known skeptic. Is this graph accepted by both sides of the debate since it shows the last 5 year average anomaly as .067 deg C, barely above zero? http://models.weatherbell.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2005.png
I got “access forbidden” for this. However I do know that many believe that GISS continually makes adjustments to make the past cooler and the present warmer.
It appears that NCEP models predict global cooling in the yellow graph on page 2202 of this paper. I could not post the image of the graph for some reason. I am not a conspiracy buff but it seems strange that NOAA does not want to show their data in a global graph even though they are part of NOAA. http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/people/wd51hd/vddoolpubs/2014_2185-2208_JClimate27_CFSv2.pdf
It sure looks that way. Are they being ignored because they do not fit with the present scare?