From Roger Pielke Sr’s Climate Science Website
Is There Climate Heating In “The Pipeline”?
A new paper has appeared (thanks to Timo Hämeranta for alerting us to it!)
Urban, Nathan M., and Klaus Keller, 2009. Complementary observational constraints on climate sensitivity. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L04708, doi:10.1029/2008GL036457, February 25, 2009. in press,
which provides further discussion of this question.
The abstract of this paper reads
“A persistent feature of empirical climate sensitivity estimates is their heavy tailed probability distribution indicating a sizeable probability of high sensitivities. Previous studies make general claims that this upper heavy tail is an unavoidable feature of (i) the Earth system, or of (ii) limitations in our observational capabilities. Here we show that reducing the uncertainty about (i) oceanic heat uptake and (ii) aerosol climate forcing can — in principle — cut off this heavy upper tail of climate sensitivity estimates. Observations of oceanic heat uptake result in a negatively correlated joint likelihood function of climate sensitivity and ocean vertical diffusivity. This correlation is opposite to the positive correlation resulting from observations of surface air temperatures. As a result, the two observational constraints can rule out complementary regions in the climate sensitivity-vertical diffusivity space, and cut off the heavy upper tail of the marginal climate sensitivity estimate”.
A key statement in the text of their paper reads
“Surface temperature observations permit high climate sensitivities if there is substantial unrealized “warming in the pipeline” from the oceans. However, complementary ocean heat observations can be used to test this and can potentially rule out large ocean warming. Ocean heat observations are compatible with high sensitivities if there is substantial surface warming which is penetrating poorly into the oceans. Again, complementary surface temperature observations can test this, and can potentially rule out large surface warming.”
By “unrealized warming in the pipeline”, they mean heat that is being stored within the ocean, which can subsequently be released into the ocean atmosphere. It is erroneous to consider this heat as ”unrealized warming”, if the Joules of heat are actually being stored in the ocean. The heat is “realized”; it would just not be entering the atmosphere yet.
As discussed in the Physics Today paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55,
there has been no heating of the upper ocean since mid-2003. Moreover, there has been no heating within the troposphere (e.g. see Figure 7 of the RSS MSU data).
Thus, there is no “warming in the pipeline” using the author’s terminology, nor any heating within the atmosphere! Perhaps the heating that was observed prior to 2003 will begin again, however, it is scientifically incorrect to report that there is any heat that has not yet been realized within the climate system.
The answer to the question posted in this weblog “Is There Climate Heating In “The Pipeline”? is NO.
kevin (19:42:24) :
100% bologna
How do comments like this make it through moderation? Is he commenting on on a previous comment, the post, WUWT, or his last meal?
Pamela: “How dare you paint an opposing scientific view with a religious brush like that!..You are off my reading list.”
Pamela, to be fair, Mary H was replying to this comment by Ron de Haan (04:59:48): “This is the stuff which is put under the carpet because it’s to “inconvenient” for certain religious agenda’s.”
So the issue was not initially raised by Mary H. Ron is not only painting an opposing scientific view with a religious brush but also implying some sort of nefarious plan. (To my mind, the grocer’s apostrophe is an equally tasteless affront, but I’m guessing that English is not Ron’s first language, so I hold my fire.)
Mary H made a more specific claim to the effect that AGW scepticism is wedded to the religious right, and I think this claim can be fairly challenged.
However, on the more general issue of AGW and religion, the religious accusation as applied to AGW is reasonably common both at WUWT and across the AGW sceptic blogosphere.
So if you were to be consistent and stop reading people who paint an opposing scientific view with a religious brush, you could end up with a rather thin reading list.
AKD (22:04:06) :
kevin (19:42:24) :
100% bologna
“How do comments like this make it through moderation? Is he commenting on on a previous comment, the post, WUWT, or his last meal?”
They make it through because Anthony is counting on people like you who creatively ask if it was his last meal. Spit my ice cold Coors light on my puter screen. So not only have I got me kickers in a twist from an earlier outburst of mine, I now stand accused of alcohol abuse.
I see foinavon ducked out of telling me his qualifications in return for me telling him mine again. Judging by the spin in this statement:
I don’t think anyone is arguing that the evidence doesn’t indicate that the ocean surface hasn’t warmed much in the last few years.
I think he may be qualified in political science rather than a physical science. After all, Josh Willis, the man who actually collates and interprets the ARGO data, doesn’t seem to have a problem admitting the data shows cooling over the last SIX YEARS.
I wonder if he sees “reduced warming” rather than cooling in these two graphics of sea surface temperature from March 2005 and March 2009…
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.5.2005.gif
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.5.2009.gif
Brendan H (22:17:51) :
So if you were to be consistent and stop reading people who paint an opposing scientific view with a religious brush, you could end up with a rather thin reading list.
Since the readership of this blog is so high, a poll would be interesting on the type of skeptic frequenting this site . For example I consider myself center to left and have left religion behind these last fifty years.
Global Cooling in the Pipeline?
Here is a prediction of global cooling made in 2002, based on my conversation with paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, and published in my article in the Calgary Herald.
Also included below is a paper by Dr. Patterson et al. Tim’s prediction was based primarily on the Gleissberg Cycle.
Whether we fully understand the mechanism or not, there seems to be a cyclical nature to warming and cooling, and an argument for a relationship to solar activity.
Let’s see who turns out to be more correct – the IPCC, who predicted catastrophic global warming, or Tim, who predicted cooling.
Given the IPCC’s dismal track record of prediction, I’d bet on natural global cooling in the near future. Maybe it has already started.
Humanity has historically fared much better under global warming than cooling conditions.
It is regrettable that so much of recent climate “research” has obsessed with demonizing CO2, a waste of time and resources, rather than developing real predictive skills.
If cooling is severe, we should start preparations now. Nobody farms north of us.
Regards, Allan
_____________________________________________________
Excerpt from:
Kyoto hot air can’t replace fossil fuels
September 1, 2002; Allan M.R. MacRae; Calgary Herald
Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.
Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.
Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.
If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.
_____________________________________________________
http://fossil.earthsci.carleton.ca/~tpatters/pubs2/2004/patterson2004sedgeol172_67-84.pdf
Late Holocene sedimentary response to solar and cosmic ray activity influenced climate variability in the NE Pacific,
Patterson, R.T., Prokoph, A., Chang, A.S.
Sedimentary Geology (2004) 172, p. 67-84.
Marine-laminated sediments along the NE Pacific coast (Effingham inlet, Vancouver Island) provide an archive of climate variability at annual to millennial scales. A 7.75-m portion of piston core TUL99B-03 was deposited during a ≈ 3045-year interval [≈1440-4485 years before present (yBP)] under primarily anoxic conditions. Darker clay laminae were deposited under higher precipitation conditions in winter, and diatom-dominated laminae were laid down when marine productivity was higher in the spring through autumn.
Wavelet transform and other time-series analysis methods were applied to sediment color (i.e. gray-scale values) line-scans obtained from X-ray images and compared with global records of cosmogenic nuclides 14C and 10Be, as well as the Ice Drift Index (hematite-stained grains) record to detect cycles, trends, and nonstationarities in the climate and sedimentary pattern. Our results show that the marine sedimentary record in the NE Pacific responded to abrupt changes and long-term variability in climate that can be linked to external forcing (e.g., solar and cosmic irradiance). Specifically, a strong cooling in the NE Pacific at ≈3550±160 yBP can be correlated to a weakening of high-frequency (50-150 years) pulses in sun activity at the Gleissberg cycle band, similar to what occurred at the onset of the “Little Ice Age” at ≈1630 AD.
Three intervals of unusually low sun activity at ≈ 2350, 2750, and ≈ 3350 yBP are characterized by thick, clay-rich annual sedimentation that we interpret as representative of unusually wet conditions. These intervals of higher precipitation conditions may have been related to a regional intensification of the Aleutian Low (AL) caused by an eastward migration of the Center of Action (COA) of the AL, which occurs during intervals of solar minima. Dryer conditions in the region occur when the COA of AL migrates westward and the COA of the North Pacific High (NPH) migrates northward during intervals of solar maxima. A cyclicity of 50-85, 33-36, and 22-29 years in the sediment color record, lamination thickness, and 14C cosmogenic nuclide, characterized the relatively warm interval from 3550 to 4485 yBP. This record is similar to that of present-day low- and high-frequency variants of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Aleutian Low.
_____________________________________________________
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989, 2008
Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing
Nir J. Shaviv
Abstract
Over the 11-year solar cycle, small changes in the total solar irradiance (TSI) give rise
to small variations in the global energy budget. It was suggested, however, that different
mechanisms could amplify solar activity variations to give large climatic effects, a
possibility which is still a subject of debate. With this in mind, we use the oceans as a
calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle. This
is achieved through the study of three independent records, the net heat flux into the
oceans over 5 decades, the sea-level change rate based on tide gauge records over the 20th
century, and the sea-surface temperature variations. Each of the records can be used to
consistently derive the same oceanic heat flux.
We find that the total radiative forcing associated with solar cycles
variations is about 5 to 7 times larger than just those associated
with the TSI variations, thus implying the necessary existence of an
amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one.
Citation: Shaviv, N. J. (2008), Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:10.1029/2007JA012989.
Received 17 December 2007; revised 20 July 2008; accepted 6 August 2008; published 4 November 2008.
Note: This appeared in the Space Sciences Section of JGR. 13 pages.
AFJ
Pamela Gray (22:23:57) :
AKD (22:04:06) :
kevin (19:42:24) :
100% bologna
““How do comments like this make it through moderation? Is he commenting on on a previous comment, the post, WUWT, or his last meal?”
They make it through because Anthony is counting on people like you who creatively ask if it was his last meal. Spit my ice cold Coors light on my puter screen. So not only have I got me kickers in a twist from an earlier outburst of mine, I now stand accused of alcohol abuse”.
Pamela Gray,
I think we do better if we limit ourselves to the science and leave Pandora’s Box closed and locked. It’s to emotional and we don’t need it.
Let’s have a drink and a nice slice of bologna
Pamela Gray (21:30:25) :
Pamela, I am addressing what this thread seems to be (partly) about, namely a very short period where there hasn’t been a rise in the surface/tropospheric temperature of the Earth. If we’re addressing very short periods then we obviously need to consider some of the contributions to temperature changes that occur on very short periods, but are generally averaged out to near zero on the timescales of long term trends in response to enhanced forcings.
So while any effects of the solar cycle on surface temperature average to zero (unless there is a persistent change in the solar output outwith the solar cycle), the small changes in solar irradiance during the solar cycle must contribute to “noise” on short timescales. The estimates of the peak to trough influence of the solar cycle on surface temperature is difficult to assess (since it’s small!) but it’s considered to be around 0.1 oC (a recent paper by Tung and Camp suggests that it could be as high as 0.18 oC, but this is likely to be on the large side [ Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection Geophysical Research Letters, 34, L14703, (2007)].
If the long term warming trend under enhanced greenhouse forcing is (say) 0.2 oC per decade, to give an “ideal” annual warming of 0.02 oC per year, the effect of enhanced greenhouse forcing would be pretty much canceled during the waning 5-ish period of the solar cycle and doubled during the 5-ish year waxing period. The nett effect of the solar cycle is zero, but measured over very short time periods we expect on average the earth’s temperature to be a tad reduced near the minimum of the solar cycle and a tad enhanced near the maximum.
This doesn’t particularly stand out in the record because other contributions to “noise” (volcanic eruptions, El Nino’s/La Nina’s and so on) often make stronger contributions on short time scales.
However a period with significant La Nina’s, negative PDO indices that coincides with the solar minimum is likely to give us about as cool as we get under given conditions. That’s why 2008 gave us quite a significant down turn in the surface temperature record. Still, even with the coincidence of a number of “cooling” contributions, 2008 was still up there in the top 10 warm years….
anna v: “Since the readership of this blog is so high, a poll would be interesting on the type of skeptic frequenting this site.”
That would be an interesting exercise. Questions could include the likes of age, sex, profession, location, nationality, political persuasion, as well as religion. I think I have as fair idea of the likely results.
Bill Illis (16:41:46) :
I’m not sure what data you’re talking about Bill! I listed some of the large published data set from satellite measurements that seem to be pretty reliable since their interpretations are robust across a number of different studies [ see foinavon (12:07:48)].
I’m not sure what data you are referring to. The published data that bears specifically on the question of the water vapour response to changes in temperature seem to indicate that the water vapour concentration in the troposphere does tend to maintain constant relative humidity on average, and within the range of temperature variation of the period 2003-2005:
Dessler, A. E., Z. Zhang, and P. Yang (2008), Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations, 2003–2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L20704
Otherwise the a couple of people on this thread have referred to a recent paper that addresses tropospheric water vapour from radiosondes, the authors of which explicitly point out repeatedly throughout the paper that the radiosonde data is not necessarily reliably [see foinavon (16:16:45)]
So you need to be specific about what data you are referring to.
…and notice btw that the models do not assume constant realtive humidity.
Question everything Bill. Everyone questions models since that’s the only way of determining whether our understanding of the modeled phenomena are reliably parameterized. Models are continually assessed in relation to real world analyses, and if it becomes clear that parameterizations should be altered in light of new knowledge, then this is obviously done. However there’s no point assessing models against real world measurements that the authors themselves describe as quite likely to be unreliable…
whoops, that should say;
“….and within the range of temperature variation of the period 2003-2008”
a couple of people on this thread have referred to a recent paper that addresses tropospheric water vapour from radiosondes, the authors of which explicitly point out repeatedly throughout the paper that the radiosonde data is not necessarily reliably
Question everything Bill.
Including the equally reliable satellite derived ‘measurements’ of humidity levels in the upper troposphere foinavon?
Or are they ‘reliably robust’ in your world?
foinavon, I think you are unclear on the effects of solar output on recent temperature data (I think it has had no effect). “Tad” is not a statistic and you are unclear on the number you actually use. I believe that number is likely based on a now rejected measure of solar output.
You actually start making sense to me further down when you get to oceanic affects. Try adding trade winds (as an affect of orbital spin) and the jet streams along with all the oscillating oceans (plus the warm and cool waves discovered in the Antarctic ocean within that oscillation). Then consider how these trends can coincide to produce marked upswings and downturns in temperatures over long stretches of time (IE 30 or more years). It is reasonable to hypothesize that these various oscillations sometimes fall into sync. Not all of them at once, but pairing or tripling is not unreasonable. However, given that these things are oscillations with various durations, a grand sync, though rare, is also not outside a reasonable hypothesis.
Once things get into grand sync it will take a while for the oscillations to get out of grand sync. Most of the time, these oscillations occur together in smaller groups. But like all oscillations, rarely, they all get together and sing the same tune. Loud and clear. Which ones were in sync during the last century, including the last part of the century? Do you know which ones are in sync now? Do you know which ones are slowly catching up to the ones that are in sync? And which ones are slowly moving out of sync? Can you predict a grand sync based on this information? Is the next grand sync going to be cold or warm?
Examining CO2 is like doing a proctology exam on a knat’s ass. Why do you (and others I might add on the other side of the debate) minimize these much greater and long term weather pattern variation sources? They easily wipe the tiny variation in atmospheric CO2 off the table for consideration like a bug on a windshield. As they do the Sun’s tiny variation in solar output. Yet many people on both sides of a debate described as being the Sun versus CO2, don the glove and probe the gnat’s behind.
If you need more information on global oceanic oscillations, this pdf article is a great way to start. Any poster and blogger here should be, in my opinion, encouraged to download this article as a requirement for being given the privilege of adding their 2 cents worth to this most excellent blog.
http://earth.unh.edu/esci765-865/Rahmstorf%202002.pdf
Brendan H,
“That would be an interesting exercise. Questions could include the likes of age, sex, profession, location, nationality, political persuasion, as well as religion. I think I have as fair idea of the likely results.”
Brendan, I don’t think it’s relevant that I am 21, neutered, on welfare, in Cleveland, Welsh, communist, and a Jashinist. How could any of those things affect my world view?
Mike Bryant
Besides how is any of that YOUR business?
Pamela Gray (07:34:53) :
There’s no question that the solar cycle itself must produce a (somewhat lagged) response in the Earth’s surface temperature. I’ve used a value near 0.1 oC of temperature response at the surface from the solar max to solar min. That’s the number that has been determined by a number of analyses [***]. It’s quite small (that’s why I used the term “a tad”!), but it will obviously oppose greenhouse forcing -induced warming as the solar cycle goes from max to min over around 5 years, and will supplement greenhouse forcing as the solar cycle goes from min to max on the “upswing”.
See for example:
J. L. Lean & D. H. Rind (2008) How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface temperatures: 1889 to 2006 Geophys. Res. Lett.35, L18701
“The 13-month running mean solar cycle change is 0.11 K at one month lag, consistent with the solar cycle signal found in lower troposphere satellite data since 1979 [Douglass and Clader, 2002].”
[***] see also (which all indicate that the earth’s surface response to the solar cycle is around 0.1 oC from max to min):
Douglass, D. H., and B. D. Clader (2002), Climate sensitivity of the Earth to solar irradiance, Geophys. Res. Lett., 29(16), 1786, doi:10.1029/2002GL015345
Lean, J. (2005), Living with a variable Sun, Phys. Today, 58, 32–38.
Scafetta, N., and B. J. West (2005), Estimated solar contribution to the global surface warming using the ACRIM TSI satellite composite, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L18713, doi:10.1029/2005GL023849.
You describe ocean oscillation cycles:
Is there any evidence that these longish term oscillations can result in significant global-scale temperature changes by “getting into synch” in the manner you describe? Most of the ocean current oscillations seem to be in anti-phase I think. Otherwise one has to postulate what seem like some decidedly anti-entropic phenomena…
foinavon, you reveal a common misunderstanding that one ocean oscillation feeds the other, thus they can never be in sync. My suggestion is that you improve your understanding of what causes these oscillations in each area. Our oceans are not as intricately linked as you think, given the break up and spread of land masses. Did you read the article I referred to above?
Pamela Gray (12:33:34) :
Yes, I know Rahmstorf’s Nature review quite well.
If you read Rahmstorf, you’ll find that he is largely describing the quite good evidence for anti-phase oscillations that are largely the result of changes in the strengths of ocean currents that carry heat from the equator to the high Northern latitudes. These alterations in the merodinal overturning circulation seem to underlie the D/O, Heinrich, and Younger Dryas events that Rahmstorf describes. There is also evidence that changes in heat transport to the high Northern latitudes played a role in the so-called “Little Ice Age”, which was also largely prevelant in the high Northern latitudes.
I really don’t think there is significant evidence that supports ideas of concerted “synchronization” of ocean currents to the extent that massive and concerted heat can “aggregate” and give significant longish term surface warmth (or cooling). I’m curious to see the evidence.
Mike Bryant: “Brendan, I don’t think it’s relevant that I am 21, neutered, on welfare, in Cleveland, Welsh, communist, and a Jashinist. How could any of those things affect my world view?”
Take the age thing. Young people tend to be more impulsive and risk-taking than older people, and have shorter time horizons. That will affect one’s worldview. As for my business, I said a survey would be interesting. But of course the results would have nothing to do with the science.
Mike Bryant (08:11:05) :
Concise, memorable, and hilarious. Thanks.
Henry.
Foinavon:
I really don’t think there is significant evidence that supports ideas of concerted “synchronization” of ocean currents to the extent that massive and concerted heat can “aggregate” and give significant longish term surface warmth (or cooling). I’m curious to see the evidence.
You need to relax about the science a bit and read around the many varied sources which provide anecdotal evidence in the recent historical past regarding large swings in climates (yes, plural) around the world. This may give you a greater appreciation of the power of nature and the curious instabilities within the overall stability of the earth’s response to energy input.
I have a challenge for you. Gather information on all the oceanic oscillations that have been discovered so far. They each have names. There are at least two in the Atlantic. The Arctic Oscillation is not the same thing as the Atlantic Oscillation. Does the Indian Ocean have one? Which one circles the globe?
I’ll start. The North Pacific Gyre Oscillation was only recently discovered as a naturally occurring phenomenon. Its oscillation pattern has yet to be established. But it is believed that it figures into land temperatures in major ways.
foinavon (12:57:25) :
“f you read Rahmstorf, you’ll find that he is largely describing the quite good evidence for anti-phase oscillations that are largely the result of changes in the strengths of ocean currents that carry heat from the equator to the high Northern latitudes. These alterations in the merodinal overturning circulation seem to underlie the D/O, Heinrich, and Younger Dryas events that Rahmstorf describes.”
There is also substantial isotope evidence,that in the plaeclimatic past ocean warming occurred sometimes 2-10k “prior” to increased GHG.
There are also other incidences of NH warming in instances of low ghg.An the interhemispheris assymetry (which is netter described as chirality) it has no mirror image.
eg Z. T. Guo et al.: Correlation of China loess and Antarctica ice records
MIS-13 is therefore a real case of a substantial northern hemispheric warming under relatively low concentrations of greenhouse gases. Smaller northern ice-sheets would have also occurred during MIS-11 and MIS-5e, with apparently
a lesser hemispheric asymmetry than for MIS-13. These also suggest that the coupling of hemispheric climates at the glacial-interglacial scales was significantly unstable in the Mid-Pleistocene and that marine 18O records may not
be always reliable indicators of northern ice-volume. These findings may also have implications for the evolution of the climate system during other periods of the Quaternary.
Once again paradox is the rule not the exception hence there is no standard model for understanding the “past”