Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Alternate Title: Climate Models Undermine the Hypothesis of Human-Induced Global Warming
According to the hypothesis of human-induced global warming, manmade greenhouse gases create an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere, which causes the Earth to retain heat. One of the hypothetical results of that retained heat is global surface warming. The opening sentence of the abstract of Trenberth et al. (2014) Earth’s Energy Imbalance confirms that statement. It reads:
Climate change from increased greenhouse gases arises from a global energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere (TOA).
Another hypothetical result of the energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere is the accumulation of heat in the oceans. In the post Climate Models are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 3, we presented the top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance of the climate models stored in the Climate Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) archive. (The CMIP5-archived models were used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for their 5th Assessment Report.) As is commonly done by the climate science community, we then converted the simulated top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance to ocean heat uptake, and we discovered that there was a very wide range of modeled ocean heat accumulation and losses. See Figure 1, which is Figure 1.24-14 from Part 3. It is for the depths of 0-700 meters.
Figure 1
In Part 3 of this series, we discussed how 8 of the models were outliers, with simulated ocean heat accumulation either way too high or with the simulated oceans losing heat. And as you’ll recall, the ocean heat accumulation for the full oceans showed the same outliers. (See Figure 1.24-7 from that post.) So in Part 3, we eliminated the outliers and found that the remaining climate models all showed ocean heat accumulation that was higher than observed, with the average (the consensus, the groupthink) being twice as high as the observed ocean heat accumulation for the period of 1955 to 2015. In other words, the remaining models were too sensitive to manmade greenhouse gases by a wide margin.
In this post, we’re going to take another look at the outlying climate models and illustrate a peculiarity inherent in those models.
CLIMATE MODEL DRIFT
As a preface, we discussed climate model drift in Part 3 of this series and that model drift may be the cause for the models with the outlying ocean heat accumulation and losses. See the discussion under the Part 3’s heading of THE IPCC’S PRESENTATION IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. Climate scientists adjust climate model outputs to account for drift. That is, instead of correcting a problem that has plagued climate models for decades, they tweak the model outputs.
If the models presented in this post are suffering from drift, then this post exposes one of the problems of drift.
THE 8 OUTLIERS
Figure 2 shows the ocean heat accumulation of the 8 outlying climate models, for the depths of 0-700 meters, and for the period of 1955 to 2015. They include BCC-CSM1-1, BCC-CSM1-1-M, FIO-ESM (3 runs), MIROC5 (3 runs), MIROC-ESM, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, NorESM1-M, and NorESM1-ME.
Five of the models show the oceans losing heat from 1955 to 2015, while three of the models show way too much ocean heat accumulation. (You’ll note that I’ve changed the color-coding for this post.)
Figure 2
And as discussed in Part 3 of this series, the reason the 3 models showed too much ocean heat accumulation was because their simulated top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalances were too high. Conversely, the reason the 5 models showed the oceans losing heat was because their simulated top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalances were negative. See Figure 3.
Figure 3
THE PECULIARITY
In the real world, according to the hypothesis of human induced global warming, if the Earth had a negative energy imbalance (that is, the outgoing energy was greater than incoming), wouldn’t global surfaces be cooling? They aren’t in the 5 models with the negative energy imbalances. See Figure 4.
Figure 4
In fact, regardless of whether the climate models are showing the extremely high positive top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalances or showing negative imbalances, all of the models show global surface warming. In other words, global surface warming is not dependent on a positive energy imbalance in 5 of the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report.
THE FOUR EXTREMES
According to the hypothesis of human induced global warming, in the real world, if the Earth had a very high positive energy imbalance (much more incoming than outgoing radiation), wouldn’t global surfaces be warming at a very high rate? They are not in the models with the high energy imbalance.
To help drive home the point of this post, Figure 5 illustrates the ocean heat accumulation and losses from 4 of the climate models: MIROC-ESM, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, NorESM1-M, and NorESM1-ME. Those are the models with the extremely high simulations of ocean heat accumulation and losses.
Figure 5
And Figure 6 shows the reasons for the extreme ocean heat gains and losses in those models: the high positive and negative simulated energy imbalances at the top of the atmosphere. They are roughly +2.5 watts per square meter and -2.5 watts per square meter for those four models.
Figure 6
Yet, as shown in Figure 7, regardless of whether the average simulated energy imbalances for the period of 1955 to 2015 are roughly +2.5 watts per square meter or -2.5 watts per square meter, they show comparable rates of global surface warming for that period.
Figure 7
CLOSING
Bottom line: According to some of the climate models used by the IPCC for their 5th Assessment Report, global surface warming for the period of 1955 to 2015 is NOT dependent on the simulated top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalance. In other words, those climate models undermine the hypothesis of human-induced global warming.
If climate model drift is the reason for those odd relationships, the modelers need to fix the models, not adjust the outputs.
OTHER POSTS IN THIS SERIES
Climate Models are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 1 illustrated and discussed how climate models fail to simulate the spatial patterns of warming and cooling of the surfaces of the global oceans over the past 3+ decades and why they should simulate them.
Climate Models are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 2 presented time series graphs of sea surface temperatures (not anomalies) globally and on hemispheric and individual ocean-basin bases, from 1982 to 2015, showing that climate models fail to properly simulate the warming rates (far too much warming in most cases) and the actual temperatures of the surfaces of Earth’s oceans.
Climate Models are NOT Simulating Earth’s Climate – Part 3 illustrated and discussed how climate models, excluding the outliers presented in this post, show way too much ocean heat accumulation since 1955. This strongly suggests that most climate models are far too sensitive to manmade greenhouse gases.
It’s almost like the rate of warming of surface temps is fixed, everything else is derived from that.
It certainly does appear that they have started from a preconceived conclusion. I am really curious how they got a model to show surface warming while having a large negative energy imbalance at TOA. At least they keep providing empirical evidence that CAGW is pseudoscience.
If you design a machine with 10 “control” knobs, but program only one to be dominant or functional, you can do whatever you like with the other nine and it doesn’t change the results.
That would appear to be the methodology.
The methodology certainly seems to be fixed. How else are the most egregious scenarios not dropped over the years? Why, after 28 years, are we still seeing a range of outcomes in 2100 that go from I-don’t-really-care to we’re-all-dead?
There is some system in which each modellers assumptions are held inviolate, with only CO2 quantities allowed to vary. It’s as if the “settled” part is AN algorithm, though they allow a wide variety of algorithms to be likely.
The other possibility is that the modellers agree that climate sensitivity is dependent on CO2 input and “other things”, and that each model is therefore “correct” for a PORTION of the next 85 years. So the end result will not be an average of their thoughts, but a patchwork. Just like Mann’s Hockey Stick temperature graph: tree ring proxies early on, instrumental data later.
In other words, those climate models undermine the hypothesis of human-induced global warming.
================
great catch, Bob.
This would appear to constitute falsification of the GHG CO2 radiation theory. The models are showing conclusively that warming IS NOT due to an energy imbalance, which is a stake through the heart of the blood sucking climate vampire.
the challenge for climate science is clear. what is causing the warming? it cannot be CO2 because if it was, all the models that show warming would show a positive radiation imbalance. But some of them don’t.
The sun caused the warming. 2014 and 2015 were warm years because of the sun’s highest TSI levels since 2002. From http://lasp.colorado.edu/data/sorce/tsi_data/daily/sorce_tsi_L3_c24h_latest.txt today:
Year 1au TSI
2015 1361.4321
2014 1361.3966
2013 1361.3587
2016 1361.3056
2012 1361.2413
2011 1361.0752
2003 1361.0292
2004 1360.9192
2010 1360.8027
2005 1360.7518
2006 1360.6735
2007 1360.5710
2009 1360.5565
2008 1360.5382
Hi Bob Weber,
Earths oceans love to pull in energy and absorb the frequencies from the hydrogen band, there’s a very basic scientific principle involved, the output of the sun is strongest in these frequencies! UV and xrays, earths hydrogen based oceans, polar ice caps and clouds soak up these frequencies, enso shows a regular lag with solar maximums and solar minimums, these blips of warming or cooling have nothing at all to do with the frequenies that CO2 absorb or TSI variability.
There is an ‘indicator’ of measured and recorded TSI, this is a result of peak solar activity in which IR and visible frequencies rise with higher and more power frequencies.
Although you are noticing what IR and TSI are doing, you are not correct with the interpretation.
Just saying 😉
Sparks, you will see for yourself how TSI does it when I will put this issue to bed in my upcoming research article. TSI rules, and I have all the evidence necessary to prove it. The other spectral components you mentioned are all part of TSI 🙂 Good to hear from you Sparks.
Can someone explain how this is physically possible?
“In fact, regardless of whether the climate models are showing the extremely high positive top-of-the-atmosphere energy imbalances or showing negative imbalances, all of the models show global surface warming.”
Have these “scientists” ever used conservation of energy arguments?
The real problem J, is a lack of understanding and proper calibration to variable incoming solar radiation, TSI.
The reductionist methods used by warmists undervalue solar variation and overvalue CO2 “heat trapping”, and by using the ‘standard’ “0.1%” TSI variation per solar cycle, they have assumed a ‘constant’ that isn’t constant! Peak variation is more than double that figure, and if a model doesn’t incorporate each solar cycle TSI varation, and if each cycle is weighted the same, no such model stands a chance of being “real”.
So what then about the warmists’ essential argument??? “It’s basic physics.”
“It’s basic physics.”
=============
the three body problem is also basic physics. we have no practical general solution that predicts the future for anything more than 2 objects. The climate system has a uncounted trillions of objects.
That is a lousy similé … just saying GoatGuy
On the contrary, the 3 body problem is a direct result of chaos, which is at the heart of the climate forecasting problem.
For example, in the graphic below, the line traced is 1 body, the other 2 bodies are the attractors. A chaotic view of the 3 body problem.
http://www.fractal-animation.net/progz/lorenz2.gif
Is ‘uncounted trllions of objects’ just a guess too?
Should I, out of curiosity only apply sb law to one gas?
No, my dear GoatGuy, it qualifies as an analogy. Furthermore, your use of the accented e is an example of hypercorrection. Simile is a perfectly correct English word without any trace of diacritical marks.
“The pedant is strong with this one.” – D. Vader
CO2 as a greenhouse gas is basic physics. All the atmosphere and ocean feedbacks are not. The art is in the meaning of ‘It’. And warmunists twist ‘It’ to imply something that cannot be true.
Let us stick to physics.
CO2 is a radiative gas. Or if you like it is an IR absorbing and an IR emitting gas.
Whether it is a ‘greenhouse’ gas has yet to be established.
CO2 as a greenhouse gas is basic physics
============================
nope. real greenhouses do not warm as a result of gas. they warm as a result of reduced convection. that is basic physics.
Where the pseudo-science and fraud has occurred is the claim that real greenhouses warm by the same process as CO2 is thought to warm the atmosphere.
The US Government says this is true, in their most recent climate document. Yet it is fundamentally not true and is easily demonstrated to not be true. Open a window in the roof of your greenhouse and you will quickly see that convection controls the warming effect.
Models disregard some basic physics, like a temperature dependence of a latent heat of water vaporization.
This is the sort of analysis that models are supposed to be used for. Not to try and predict the unpredictable. But rather to provide insight into what we should be observing if our theories are correct.
The models tell us for example that we should be observing a “hot spot” if water feedback is positive. Yet no hot spot is observed. From which we should conclude that water feedback is not positive.
The models now tell us the warming is independent of energy imbalance. Yet the theory says that CO2 GHG warming will create an energy imbalance. Are the models wrong, or is the theory incomplete?
If the models are just plain wrong you cannot conclude anything.
So if no hot spot is observed, is it because water feedback is not positive or is it because the model is just wrong? There is no way to reach a conclusion because the model itself can be all wrong.
Perhaps there are other variables – incorrectly modeled or not accounted for at all (that is, unknown) – that are producing the “unexpected” results.
It seems all these models are “aimed” at showing that CO2 is the driver of warming and the modelers are attempting every possible combination of the KNOWN variables to produce THEIR HOPED FOR result.
Eventually, somebody may find the “correct” combination of variables in a “wrong” model (my suggestion, toss in the price over time, of clarified butter in Bangladesh or perhaps a correction factor to account for dark matter) and they will shout eureka because they have “proved” that CO2 is indeed the culprit.
QED.
There is a likely reason for your odd result. TOA imbalance is an emergent secondary result, not a driver. The main intended result is temperature and sensitivity. The models have to be parameterized (see my guest post last year on models). They were parameterized to best hindcast temperature from ye 2005/jan1 2006 back to 1975, because that was the first required submission in the published CMIP5 ‘experimental protocol’. (I note in passing that running a model is NOT an experiment except in climate ‘science’.) So the parameters were tuned to a period with at least partly naturally rising temperature, like 1920-1945. So they reproduce that going forward, although producing goofy other results such as you show here.
TOA imbalance is an emergent secondary result, not a driver.
=================
fever is an emergent secondary result of an infection. if some people show a fever and some people do not, while the theory says that all people should be infected, it indicates that there is a fundamental flaw in the underlying premise.
ristvan says, “TOA imbalance is an emergent secondary result, not a driver.”
That should be clarified as: TOA imbalance is an emergent secondary result in the models, not a driver like in the real world.
Thanks, ristvan and Bob. As I see it, the energy imbalance arises in the models because energy that would otherwise escape to space (and, therfore, yield a balance at the TOA), is being trapped and re-radiated downward (only downward) by those evil GHGs. If the GHGs weren’t doing that, then there would be no energy imbalance. Have I got that right?
Bob, ristvan, thank you for all your contributions to this site.
Bob, thanks for the clarification. What I cryptically meant.
What is this “balance” nonsence?
Great post, thanks!
A climate model can calculate 8 figures to 4 decimal points. Real actual measurements are lucky to make 3 significant figures and one decimal point. 2.5 W/m^2 is a statistical hallucination. Actual measurements have uncertainties ten times that amount.
Tee hee … and back then they used sticks to measure distance, area, volume, to measure temperature (hollow ones), to mix chemicals, and to point out confounding formulæ on the lecturer’s chalkboard. Pretty good science for an era that hadn’t even invented vacuum tubes let alone transistors and computers…
“You obviously don’t have any experience with bolometers.”
No, but decades of experience measuring flows, pressures, and temperatures, heat and using infrared cameras. Sure a bolometer can see that some distant object is warmer than the surroundings, but claiming that object is xxx.xxx C or emitting xx.xx W/m^2 might be a bit iffy. A hundred measurements of x.0 W/m^2 can be statistically reduced to x.xxxxxxx W/m^2, but that’s just an illusion.
assuming a Gaussian distribution yes the standard error of the mean drops by sqrt(1/n) in relation to the error of the measurement.
While you can reasonably argue that a thermometer and its reader are Gaussian, the land surface topology is not Gaussian and the distribution over time is not Gaussian. So you actually need to model the distribution and modify your equation. See Taleb for example on how extreme this can get. SExbar can actually diverge in some cases.
In the case of autocorrelated surfaces, I have found via Monte Carlo analysis that the SExbar was 2.5x larger than from that standard equation.
I’ve done quite a bit of reading and the main temperature records have not accounted for this. It affects not just the accuracy of the estimate of the error, but also the algorithms they use for infilling.
Peter
So, 999.9 represents a precision of one part in ten thousand. That’s 0.01%.
I spent a career measuring microwaves with a variety of instruments including the occasional bolometer. Most of the time we were happy to achieve 1% accuracy. For physical model work we didn’t expect better than 20%. Even if your instruments are very accurate, the test setup usually degrades the accuracy you can get. This Agilent document describes instruments used in microwave measurement.
Someone mentioned detecting a cow. These days, that’s a student project. If the cow is about 3 deg. C above the ambient, that’s about a 1% difference. The trick is to have a sufficiently narrow beam width. It looks like Langley used a telescope.
Bottom line: I fully agree with Nicholas Schroeder.
Thanks.
I’m more inclined to this one. Hey, I was lucky to figure out the over bar. And of course the text box screws the formatting.
U x̅ = √((b x̅)2 + (s x̅)2)
Source: ASME PTC 19.1 – Test Uncertainty eq 6-4.2
We are warming because El Nino-like conditions have dominated. The ocean is disgorging stored heat. Over time the oceans will eventually be depleted to the point that El Nino-like conditions are not possible. It makes us feel warm but make no mistake, it can’t happen in any way that is permanent. The oceans will eventually be starved for heat. At that point, a predominating normal to super normal condition will take over, leaving us in the cold as the oceans soak up and keep solar energy till engorged with it.
Spot on Pamela! The 2015 El Nino took off in earnest last March, one month after the SC24 TSI peak in February. TSI has oscillated back and forth across the ‘warming line’ since Dec 1 last year, and as SSNs and F10.7 subside into the solar minimum, so will TSI, and so will temps. SSTs dropped noticeably during the last minimum in 2008/9.
There’s no escaping the ultimate truth that solar variation rules our weather and climate. Remember SC2 during the 1960-70s? SSTs and OHC both dropped from the start to the end of SC20, because solar activity, ie TSI, was insufficient for net warming over the cycle, whereas TSI in SC21 & SC22 was high enough for net gains in SST and OHC.
http://climate4you.com/images/SunspotsMonthlySIDC%20and%20HadSST3%20GlobalMonthlyTempSince1960%20WithSunspotPeriodNumber.gif
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content55-07.png
“There’s no escaping the ultimate truth that solar variation rules our weather and climate.”
—————–
That’s a bold statement. You are invited to prove it.
Correlations fail throughout the range of your posted graphs.
shoud read : fail
throughoutwithin the range…“We are warming because El Nino-like conditions have dominated. The ocean is disgorging stored heat. Over time the oceans will eventually be depleted to the point that El Nino-like conditions are not possible. It makes us feel warm but make no mistake, it can’t happen in any way that is permanent. The oceans will eventually be starved for heat.”
Then why aren’t ocean temperatures declining?
I think the burden is on you to demonstrate where I said something wrong, as you are making the accusation.
SSTs are a function of OHC, which is a function of current incoming solar radiation and past solar radiation.
Everything I say is backed up with data, as you all will soon see. I’ll see you on the other side of your epiphany.
“Then why aren’t ocean temperatures declining?” – Chris, I realize your question was for Pamela. Here’s my answer: They are peaking from the TSI driven ENSO, and are now set to decline.
See http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/Products/ocean/sst/anomaly/index.html, where you can see the progression of SSTs through time with these images that are updated every few days. One can see cooling is now underway:
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.2.29.2016.gif
The following table is OHC in the equatorial regions from http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt (I hope the table formats OK):
YR MON 130E-80W 160E-80W 180W-100W
2015 1 0.28 0.22 0.15
2015 2 0.54 0.65 0.83
2015 3 0.85 1.17 1.52
2015 4 1.05 1.42 1.74
2015 5 1.03 1.42 1.53
2015 6 0.87 1.27 1.51
2015 7 0.92 1.36 1.69
2015 8 0.99 1.43 1.97
2015 9 1.04 1.48 1.80
2015 10 1.04 1.51 1.91
2015 11 0.92 1.41 1.78
2015 12 0.58 1.04 1.20
2016 1 0.44 0.88 1.25
From that we can see the influence of high TSI in Feb 2015 on OHC in March and subsequent months, and we can see that the heat is dissipating now, as the data clearly show it is declining and is nearly back to the levels from January 2015.
There was an uptick in smoothed TSI that started in mid-Sept last year that drove SSTs and OHC up again after a monotonic decline in TSI since its peak in February 2015. SSTs are going to decline faster as the OHC diminishes and the sun becomes insufficiently active for continued warming, which it is doing right now. By the time we reach solar minimum, there should be zero doubt as to the sun’s influence on temperatures.
Solar variation unequivocally does NOT “rule” the climate. It is somewhere around the 4th order of importance behind tectonic activity, continental arrangement, and orbital forcing.
Solar activity rules the climate within the Milankovitch orbital parameters, itself a variation in insolation.
So ‘technically’, its solar insolation that rules the climate. It is ‘the’ first order climate and weather driver.
“RWturner
March 1, 2016 at 10:32 am
Solar variation unequivocally does NOT “rule” the climate. It is somewhere around the 4th order of importance behind tectonic activity, continental arrangement, and orbital forcing.”
Help me understand that RWturner. If you blot out the Sun it will get really cold here on planet Earth.
Bob Weber,
There’s nothing I enjoy more (well there is, but for talk sake) when people use an adjusted temperature anomaly to show a trend in some way, sometimes it’s CO2, sometimes it’s TSI, I’ve even correlated orbital trends to this fictitious temperature conformed trend just for fun, but that nagging honesty always gets the best of me…
TSI is not driving a CO2 based anomoly of any kind on a planetary scale, the frequencies you’re lumping together with this idea that they cause warming through CO2 is so incorrect I’m astounded everytime I see someone intelligent push this, it’s akin to the many failed press releases that came out quoting offical “scientists” that said solar cycle 24 would be the most active solar cycle everrr!! which will “exacerbate global warming”.
I’m pretty advanced when it comes to engineering, science and astronomy, somewhat qualified too, it’s my opinion for a number of reasons that our star the sun can throw our planet in and out of periods of glaciation, this idea is based on one primary principle, the suns polar field.
Continue arguing about the amount of Carbon dioxide molecules and how light effects them with the rest of the herd if you like, planetary science should move on, but it’s too politicalized, so it wont… unfortuneate to tragic lol 😉
“Chris, I realize your question was for Pamela. Here’s my answer: They are peaking from the TSI driven ENSO, and are now set to decline.”
Surface temperatures have been rapidly rising for more than a year. How can there be that kind of a lag factor between air temps increasing and sea temps decreasing? Heat can’t be in two places at once.
Well that took off in an unintended direction. Let me deal with the Sun first. Earth’s orbit wobbles, not the Sun. Changes in solar insolation due to orbital changes are intrinsic (IE caused by Earth itself). Second, the change in TSI is tiny compared to the change in W/m2 needed to change the temperature of the volume of water we are talking about. Bob Weber fails to convince.
Now let me deal with ENSO versus CO2. At this small fine scale of a few years, El Nino, El Nado, Neutral, La Nada, and La Nina are the primary means to the anomalous temperature trend we see on land, while the noise is weather-related.
Finally, let me deal with millennial scales. I look for processes that we know work in the short term to explain temperature trends (ENSO processes) and extend those same processes to see if they can explainmuch longer term ups and downs. I think it plausible that they do.
Ol’ Sol can sit in our Galaxy and just beam on. It is our highly variable Earth wut dun it.
TSI change might be tiny, but albedo fluctuations etc. are not and as I pointed out elsewhere the variations and uncertainties are orders of magnitude larger than CO2’s RFs.
But you also have to take into account oceanic mixing due to winds. As long as there is wind at the surface that is not in combat with the Coriolis Effect, you will have oceanic retention of heat energy. Opposite wind bursts or no wind at all calms the ocean, causing layering and increased evaporation. Here is the sticky wicket: you can have clouds and wind, and you can have no clouds and wind.
hmmmmm.
TSI averaged over a year may change little , but from peri- to ap- helion that is most assuredly not true . I tend to think in temperatures because most calcs I do are round trips and the SB constant drops out . But there is a 4.6 degree difference from our perihelion to aphelion equilibrium temperature . That’s a difference much larger than the total asserted drift in our mean over the last couple of hundred years and I’ve been happy to see a few posts here analyzing it .
Bob Weber uses a slight of hand phrase, “TSI driven…”. Of course the heat that has evaporated came from solar insolation (the amount of heat that makes it to the surface through the atmosphere). What doesn’t drive the oceans into an El Nino is the change in TSI from cycle peak to cycle trough or from the broader century scale up and down change. Not enough change in W/m2 to affect such a large body of water and the atmosphere that helps set it up, in any way directly measurable.
Temperature in the upper 700 meters can change as the water layers up or mixes down. And when the surface is calm, that top layer can spread like an oil slick, causing normally cooler areas to change to an anomalously warm temperature.
What we don’t measure well yet is the amount of solar insulation at the ocean surface across all its surfaces. Therefore we can’t directly measure how much solar energy is available to be absorbed. We also don’t measure well how much is deflected or weakly absorbed. A calm surface versus a choppy one absorbs and deflects differently. Cloudy versus clear water absorbs and deflects differently. So untill these measures are improved, any exotic theories of solar change or CO2 issues are just guesses. What we do know is that El Nino discharges heat and La Nina recharges heat stored in the oceans. So I am going with that.
UV and xrays are powerful enough to penatrate and move ocean temperature, this only happens at solar maximum, regardless what the frequencies that effect CO2 are doing which is one specific range on a tiny trace atmospheric gas.
The sun burns (so to speak) on the hydrogen band, the frequencies it puts out as energy are absorbed by the hydrogen on our planet, oceans, polar ice caps and clouds.
You will not find one person on this planet that can discriminate between the anthropogenic causes of hydrogen or the tiny amount of replenished CO2 in the atmosphere, the “climate bullshit change” models are and will be wrong for long time to come.
I think the models are designed for a political non existent planet called Utopia?
.. ” I think the models are designed for a political non existent LIBERAL planet called Utopia?…There, fixed it for ya !
Definition:
Liberal – open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
Careful with those pejorative labels, they have varying meaning to different individuals. If by “liberal” you mean the current political context of a tree hugging fool that worships the CAGW mantra then I would agree.
.. ” I think the models are SOCIALIST designed for a non existing planet called Utopia?…There, fixed it for ya ! Is there a planet in the whole Universe with the political UNFCCC established sensitivity for CO2?
Marxism went into Nature and Climate as surrogats for a working class that did not want to make a revolution in the West. The Object is to tear the West down. They do not accept our economy, Constitution/laws or culture.
Fixed it for you?
What like? free schooling for youngsters and benifits for people who need support?
Maybe we can have a king ride around and throw gold coins to the peasents.
Planet called “Fullacrapia”?
“non existent planet called Utopia”
Or perhaps better known by it’s more common name, “Hell”. As in “paved with good intentions”.
There is something very strange going on with the models. If the outlying models still produce global warming, what are they really modeling. How a model with a net loss of energy flow still shows warming, something else is going on.
…If you torture the model long enough, it will confess to anything !
There is nothing strange going on with the models, the models are fine it’s all in your head…
CO2 and planetary temperature are under control do not adjust your set, we control the vertical and the hoizontal…
Ultimately – if we’re being honest and not just kneejerk reactionaries – there IS physics which is real having to do with the effect of CO₂ and the notion of an energy balance for the ecosphere that directly projects increased levels of CO₂ fraction will cause additional heat retention until IR planetary emission balances sunlight flux • (1 – albedo)
I don’t have a problem with that, at all. It means the average temperature of the planet will increase in response to heightened CO₂ levels. OK!
The problem has been that it was (and apparently remains) popular to conflate feedback gain with the state of the climate system. That ‘1 unit’ of CO₂ has an influence like 3 units or 5 units of CO₂ because of the positive feedback of added heat, H₂O vapor (a strong – and the dominant – tropospheric GHG) will correspondingly increase, giving many times the influence of the CO₂ to our environment.
Early on, before the bruhaha, when ecologists (mostly), climatologists (which were once rare, on their own), hydrologists and environmental scientists were considering the newly found Mauna Loa ever-rising CO₂ trendline, there was quite a bit of controversy to whether increased water vapor was actually a GHG or just the opposite – because of its penchant for condensing into thicker, bigger, higher albedo clouds when present in higher proportions. Most thought (with a hint of Gaia self-awareness claptrap) that the H₂O vapor system “took care of itself”.
Yet somewhere in the Al Gore years, that notion was lost and FUD was spread regarding the positive feedback of the climate system, and how we’d all die, die, die, die, […]
LET US GET BACK to reality. Yes, increasing CO₂ is almost exclusively a result of fossil fuel burning. Yes, the Earth’s natural sinks aren’t ‘sinking it’ as fast as we’re emitting it. (Hasn’t reached equilibrium yet.) Yes, it can and must have an influence on the overall retained energy balance of the planet. Yes, we have and will observed some global net warming. Yes, that warming has both positive and negative correlated secondary systems that have, are and will respond to the trend. But … no, the likelihood of anything at all being catastrophically bad as a result, even at CO₂ > 575 ppm (double pre-fossil-fuel use) is very small to nil.
Especially when we consider the greening of the deserts, the increased ecosphere food-production capacity, the enhanced forest growth, and the realization that even a modest amount of sterile-ocean fertilization could stabilize CO₂ atmospheric load far, far faster than we are burning the stuff. If we really wish to “solve” the non problem.
Just musing
GoatGuy
“Yes, increasing CO₂ is almost exclusively a result of fossil fuel burning.” Since anthropogenic CO2 emissions are a few percent of the total, emission and consumption rates with uncertainties for all the other sources would need to be supplied to support that statement. It is highly unlikely that CO2 emissions from the many other major sources have held so constant over the last 100 years that our contribution accounts for the observed increase. It is also highly unlikely that the combined uncertainties are smaller than the entire human contribution.
“….increasing CO₂ is almost exclusively a result of fossil fuel burning.”
IPCC AR5 has anthro CO2 split about 2/3rds FF & cement and 1/3rd land use changes. Table 6.1.
“It is also highly unlikely that the combined uncertainties are smaller than the entire human contribution.”
IPCC AR5’s Figure 6.1 shows uncertainty in the carbon reservoirs of +/- 1,000 Gt. That’s five times anthro’s net 240 Gt 1750 thru 2011.
Goat guy,
Who’s super power is?
Just musing…
Sparks
The effect of increased CO2 even at these levels , only a little above that necessary to support life , on our Top of Atmosphere spectrum is minuscule .
And that is all the effect it has .
If you claim otherwise , Show Us Your Equations .
Mr. Tisdale, you write:
Would it not be better to write, “They aren’t in at least the 5 models with the negative energy imbalances.” One could easily contrive a (bad) model with both positive energy imbalance and surface cooling, but with the two completely decoupled from each other.
These aren’t models, they’re political tools. (And a cushy job in a fantasy world).
To all – the constant obsession with the failed AGW modelling is consuming a lot of energy and time. Doesn’t it seem to you that we should all move on to the real deal and learn how solar variation works on the Earth?
Years and years have been used up on what doesn’t work. It’s time to focus on what does work.
This works: http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com 97% match since before 1900.
Way to go Dan!
THE PECULIARITY
In the real world, according to the hypothesis of human induced global warming, if the Earth had a negative energy imbalance (that is, the outgoing energy was greater than incoming), wouldn’t global surfaces be cooling? They aren’t in the 5 models with the negative energy imbalances.
I am reminded of the McKitrick take down of the Hockey Stick where even random noise produced a Hockey Stick profile.
I look forward to the Main Stream Media thoroughly ignoring this turn of events.
Standard global warming theory states that rising LWIR radiation from the surface is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere and re-emitted downwards, thereby warming the surface above what it would have been without the CO2.
The first part of the theory is fine in that some of the LWIR from the surface is absorbed by CO2 in the atmosphere. The problem is with the second part of the theory. The LWIR radiation that is emitted by the atmospheric CO2 is emitted ‘isotropically’ i.e. in all directions, not just downwards. This means that some of the LWIR emitted by the CO2 goes upwards and is lost to space. Thus, if the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases, the amount of LWIR radiation lost to space also increases. If other things remain equal, the average global temperature must go down, not up.
LWIR radiation travels at the speed of light so the upwards and downwards paths of the radiation happen almost instantaneously, no matter how many times it bounces up and down. Because CO2 is a radiative gas – its net effect is to absorb energy from the atmosphere and radiate it into space at the speed of light.
That is why the models don’t work.
The real second part error is that per Einstein’s award winning photo-electric effect equation the CO2 molecule cannot re-emit LWIR. Internal energy losses require that lower energy and longer waves, i.e. microwaves, be re-emitted. Like the one in your kitchen that heats water molecules thanks to that wall outlet. And no matter what, radiation, convection, conduction will not on their own move heat from a colder LT to a warmer earth. Such a temperature difference makes S-B negative.
Just read that, very comical, every gas is under the same laws, CO2 is a supernatural entity though, it warms the planet hahaha
This elicits my mantra : Show Us Your Equations .
All else is endless decades of nonscience . And I don’t even know what an energy imbalance is . Clearly it’s a very transient phenomenon . What is it that “retains” the heat ? How much ? By what laws ? Show us the calculations .
Yes climate is extremely complex . But mean temperature of a radiantly heated ball is not . That’s more akin to gas laws which allow the calculation of the mean temperature of a volume of gas but say nothing about the eddies within it .
But it appears rare that anybody in these discussions even knows or is interested in the essential , experimentally testable equations of radiant heat transfer between colored bodies .
Sorry to go off like this , but until this field nails down and “settles” the most fundamental quantitative computations it will remain just a political science , not a physical science in good standing
Conservation of Energy – Fail
Violating the very foundations of physics – 1st Law of Thermodynamics – Conservation of energy -ensures climate models are inherently unreliable and worthless for public policy.
Climate “scientists” must start over and begin with Physics 101: Conservation of Energy.
Tisdale’s findings confirm Spencer & Braswell’s findings that 3D CMIP5 models violate energy conservation.
Roy Spencer & Braswell explicitly incorporated Conservation of Energy in their 1 D models.
Sceptic Climate Scientist Spencer Hits Back as Critics
Our Initial Comments on the Abraham et al. Critique of the Spencer & Braswell 1D model
The Role of ENSO in Global Ocean Temperature Changes during 1955-2011 Simulated with a 1D Climate Model
Leo DiCaprio’s ManBearPig Oscar Speech
Bob Tisdale–
How do you know the 4 (or 8) models that differ from the rest are “outliers”? They are only outliers by comparison with the rest of the models, none of whom are worthy of our trust. Feynman has a wonderful discussion of the time series of measurements of a physical constant (was it the speed of light?). Again and again, new measurements might appear to be outliers, but the consensus would stick with the majority of the measurements until finally they could not ignore the evidence, and a new consensus would develop around one of the former “outliers”.
I also wonder about the assumption that surface warming occurs only if the heat imbalance is positive. Is there no time constant involved? Perhaps we could have a heat imbalance for decades or centuries before the surface warming responds. For example, the ocean absorbing the heat, which gets distributed below the surface and only reappears at the surface following a long period of ocean overturning.
A musing. Years ago (early ’70’s) and a different arena (aerospace) I was interested in assessing the reliability of certain structural systems subject to random forcings. We studied the problems using the Method of Statistical Trials (Monte Carlo Simulation, MCS) in combination with sensitivity analyses by Variance Separation, VS. The methodology also permitted the characterization of other parameters such as geometry and boundary conditions as random variables. Using IBM 360/370 equipment dictated that the models be computationally efficient. This occurred naturally in some cases as being one dimensional in geometry and mathematics. Other times you could invoke symmetries in geometry and forcing to reduce the dimensionality of the mathematics. The MCS/VS studies gave us probabilistic assessments of reliability and the relative sensitivity of that measure to variation in any of the parameters defined by a probability distribution. The studies also allowed us to better understand the system behavior.
So, a question: Do “good” simplified climate models exist? Say, for predicting the tropical temperatures at mid-troposphere using a columnar model. If yes, it might prove instructive to apply this methodology, if not already done by others. Perhaps much too simplistic for this complex phenomena but often times simple models provide valuable insights. Oh, and inexpensive.
if the Earth had a negative energy imbalance (that is, the outgoing energy was greater than incoming), wouldn’t global surfaces be cooling?
That is a good question. In the long run it would loose energy and as a consequence some sort of average temperature should drop. In shorter runs (10 maybe 100years) the surface could heat by redistribution of energy. Think of a house with an internal heatproduction. It wiil in some time reach a balance with the surroundings and give out the same power as generated inside.
If you put more isolation on the house, the outgoing power will be less untill the inside temperature has incraesed to a new balance.
And if you remove isolation it will put out more for some time.
If you think of a house with many rooms and isolation between and different heatsources, all kinds of changes could happen with little correlation between temperature in the rooms and outgoing heat.
Concider also that TOA is more or less calibrated to some general heating of the globe. TOA is not as absolute as they like us to believe. I am impressed if they can get it inside +-10W/m2.
Hope someone can help here.
Found a global heat balance graph on Bing images. Seems to have typical W/m^2 values. (watt is power not energy) It appears to be Figure 10 of a work by Trenberth et al 2011 and includes values of eight various data sets. What is interesting is the range of variations and uncertainties. What happened to settled consensus? Several examples follow showing the eight values, average, variation from average, and highest/lowest range. (Sorry about the format, would like to copy/paste Excel/Word, .pdf, jpeg, but these text boxes don’t seem to handle that.)
Source……………..ToA…………dev from ave.
MERRA……………341.0………………-1.1
R1……………………342.0……………..-0.1
ERA40 (‘90s)…….343.0………….….0.9
CFSR………………..342.0……………..-0.1
JRA25………………342.0……………..-0.1
R2……………………341.0……………..-1.1
ERA-1………………344.0………………1.9
C20R……………….342.0……………..-0.1
Ave. & band..….342.1………………2.0
Source………..……OLR…………dev from ave.
MERRA……………243.0……………..-0.9
R1…………………..238.0……………..-5.9
ERA40 (‘90s)…….245.0……….……1.1
CFSR……………….237.0……………..-6.9
JRA25……………..255.0…………….11.1
R2…………………..243.0…………….-0.9
ERA-1……………..246.0……………..2.1
C20R………………244.0………………0.1
Ave. & band…..243.9…………….18.0
Source……….Refl Solar…..dev from ave.
MERRA………….100.0……………..-1.9
R1………………….117.0…………….15.1
ERA40 (‘90s)…..105.0………………3.1
CFSR………………..94.0……………..-7.9
JRA25………………95.0……………..-6.9
R2………………….105.0………………3.1
ERA-1…………….100.0……………..-1.9
C20R……………….99.0………………-2.9
Ave. & band….101.9……………..23.0
Source………Latent Heat…dev from ave.
MERA……………..82.0………………-6.1
R1…………………..82.0………………-6.1
ERA40 (‘90s)…..95.0……………….6.9
CFSR……………….93.0……………….4.9
JRA25……………..90.0……………….1.9
R2……………….….95.0………………6.9
ERA-1……………..79.0……………..-9.1
C20R……………….89.0………………0.9
Ave. & band. 88.1…………….16.0
The added 2 W/m^2 RF of the CO2 between 1750 and 2011, even the 8.5 W/m^2 of RCP 8.5, are trivial compared to the magnitudes. unknowns, the uncertainties, the differences i.e. +/- ranges in these eight data bases. There are also 23 W/m^2 loose, unaccounted for, in the perpetual motion loop of surface and back radiation that I am unable to resolve.
It doesn’t get more basic and fundamental than the following.
1) In the earth’s enormous churning cauldron of CO2 stores and fluxes mankind’s CO2 is trivial
2) In the earth’s chaotic heat balance CO2’s RF is trivial.
3) The GCM’s can’t begin to model these chaotic systems.
I present Tisdale the Magnificent: sage, seer, and almost-infallible delver of data. I hold here a number of models that have been sealed in a mayonnaise jar on Gavin Schmidt’s back porch since noon 2013. NOBODY, not even 97 percent of climate scientists, have bothered to look into them. BUT, Tisdale the Magnificent will, using his magical and semi-skeptical powers, give us the answers, SIGHT UNSEEN, to questions that BILLIONS of dollars have been unable to unearth.
Bob, thank you again for helping me see things I do not have the skill nor insights to unearth. Your blogs and books have been an education in themselves.
Dave Fair
Billions are spent on supercomputers running models of an unknown quality again and again. The hope (according to Dame Slingo) is to map a chaotic attractor of the climate system. That hope is based on faith, not science.
I have a layman question. Why would the average global temperature, up to an assumed fixed altitude, not ultimately be regulated by the ideal gas equation: PV=nRT?
I assume so . As I have said , I haven’t read thru Hockeyschtick’s analysis but that must certainly central to the calculations .
I just emphasize that gravity is the driving force which makes the pressure%temperature gradient stable .
It obeys the equation, but the equation does not regulate the temperature. You can solve it for any T of your choice. Then, of course, your T is an arbitrary temperature, not necessarily an average global temperature (a poorly defined notion in any case.)
What gas? And what frequencie are you refering to?
I’ll answer that .
Any gas and frequency is not in the equation .
“Why would the average global temperature, up to an assumed fixed altitude, not ultimately be regulated by the ideal gas equation: PV=nRT?”
Like much in thermo/heat transfer the equation applies to a closed system which is not the atmosphere. e.g. the receiver tank on a compressed air system. the scuba bottle of compressed air.
The equation equally applies to the atmosphere . It’s just that gravity acting on mass is the restraining force and there is a stable trade off between potential and kinetic ( ie , thermal ) energy .
Bob Tisdale, why don’t you pick one of those “outlier” models used by the IPCC as “evidence” and prove conclusively that it’s wrong? Doesn’t that then refute the claim that the “the science is settled”? In a court of law the case would then be thrown out.
Brilliant work.
“Yet, as shown in Figure 7, regardless of whether the average simulated energy imbalances for the period of 1955 to 2015 are roughly +2.5 watts per square meter or -2.5 watts per square meter, they show comparable rates of global surface warming for that period.”
Climate models are fundamental to the conclusions by United Nations climate panel IPCC. You have just falsified the idea that it might be reasonable to take action on the basis of the fifth assessment report by IPCC. It is now more clear than ever before that the climate models cannot be trusted. Too many of the models seem to produce logically and physically inconsistent results. It is also clear that models are adjusted to produce seemingly reasonable result. If United Nations had any scientific integrity they would suspend “climate actions” on the basis you provide.
However, to try to predict a likely response – a quote from Karl Popper might be suitable:
“… it is always possible to find some way of evading falsification, for example by introducing ad hoc an auxiliary hypothesis, or by changing ad hoc a definition. It is even possible without logical inconsistency to adopt the position of simply refusing to acknowledge any falsifying experience whatsoever. Admittedly, scientists do not usually proceed in this way, but logically such procedure is possible»
– Karl Popper; The logic of scientific discovery
Or the following:
“Silence is the ultimate weapon of power.”
– Charles de Gaulle
It will be hard to evade falsification this time. However, United Nations, among others, should be aware that the price for resorting to evading stratagems is high – reputations is at stakes.
It is high time for the government leaders to start asking questions.
Bob T has this idea of using his opponents data against them.
You sir/mad are full of crap! Meter squared what?
Take a few wats per meter squared jump in a lake… 🙂
Are you sure you read the post and my reply thoroughly?
By the way, maybe you should consider to slow down just a bit on your commenting.
The message here is that garbage IPCC models trump no models at all. WUWT and Exxon need to team up and sponsor an open source climate model competition.
I’ve been pushing for that for quite some time , eg : http://cosy.com/y14/CoSyNL201410.html and http://cosy.com/CoSy/MinnowBrook2013.html#PlanetTemp .
But the stipulation is that the work be done at the APL level of language so that the model be succinct enough and well factored enough to be not more than a couple of pages of understandable definitions .
I have actually started drafting a webpage , /Science/ComputationalEarthPhysics.html , to host such a discussion and open code effort , but can’t afford the time without some source of funding . Perhaps KickStart , if I find the time for that .
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Shock news.
Very cool video. Teleconnections rule.
When you have 100,000 time sequences like a temperature in Berkeley, CA, precipitation in Miami, FL, lightnings in Boulder, CO, noctilucent clouds in Barrow, AK, wind speed in Brisbane, Australia, smog in Beijing, China, you can always find a good correlation – especially if you consider correlations with a time shift. Then you call it a “teleconnection” and publish and perish.
Why are most people ignoring this strong evidence that the Sun influences the Earth’s climate on time scales from 50 to 9400 years.
Evidence that the Sun has always had an important influence upon climate change
http://astroclimateconnection.blogspot.com.au/2016/03/evidence-that-sun-has-always-had.html
Bob Tisdale,
Assuming that no two models produce the same output, there can be only one best model; and, it may not even be correct. Just because many models produce similar results doesn’t mean that they are close to being right; they may all make the same error. Averaging the best model with all the others just makes it worse. There has to be an independent assessment of the models to see if any of them are even “useful.” The others then need to be discarded or radically changed. As long as the CAGW community resists revising their models so that they conform with measurements and provide trustworthy predictions, the modelers are living in a fantasy world.