Guest Post By William DiPuccio
Albert Einstein once said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” Einstein’s words express a foundational principle of science intoned by the logician, Karl Popper: Falsifiability. In order to verify a hypothesis there must be a test by which it can be proved false. A thousand observations may appear to verify a hypothesis, but one critical failure could result in its demise. The history of science is littered with such examples.
A hypothesis that cannot be falsified by empirical observations, is not science. The current hypothesis on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), presented by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), is no exception to this principle. Indeed, it is the job of scientists to expose the weaknesses of this hypothesis as it undergoes peer review. This paper will examine one key criterion for falsification: ocean heat.
Ocean heat plays a crucial role in the AGW hypothesis, which maintains that climate change is dominated by human-added, well-mixed green house gasses (GHG). IR radiation that is absorbed and re-emitted by these gases, particularly CO2, is said to be amplified by positive feedback from clouds and water vapor. This process results in a gradual accumulation of heat throughout the climate system, which includes the atmosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, lithosphere, and, most importantly, the hydrosphere. The increase in retained heat is projected to result in rising atmospheric temperatures of 2-6ºC by the year 2100.
In 2005 James Hansen, Josh Willis, and Gavin Schmidt of NASA coauthored a significant article (in collaboration with twelve other scientists), on the “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (Science, 3 June 2005, 1431-35). This paper affirmed the critical role of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW. “Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance,” they maintained, “can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy” (1432).
Monotonic Heating. Since the level of CO2 and other well-mixed GHG is on the rise, the overall accumulation of heat in the climate system, measured by ocean heat, should be fairly steady and uninterrupted (monotonic) according to IPCC models, provided there are no major volcanic eruptions. According to the hypothesis, major feedbacks in the climate system are positive (i.e., amplifying), so there is no mechanism in this hypothesis that would cause a suspension or reversal of overall heat accumulation. Indeed, any suspension or reversal would suggest that the heating caused by GHG can be overwhelmed by other human or natural processes in the climate system.
A reversal of sufficient magnitude could conceivably reset the counter back to “zero” (i.e., the initial point from which a current set of measurements began). If this were to take place, the process of heat accumulation would have to start again. In either case, a suspension or reversal of heat accumulation (excepting major volcanic eruptions) would mean that we are dealing with a form of cyclical rather than monotonic heating.
Most scientists who oppose the conclusions of the IPCC have been outspoken in their advocacy of cyclical heating and cooling caused primarily by natural processes, and modified by long-term human climate forcings such as land use change and aerosols. These natural forcings include ocean cycles (PDO, AMO), solar cycles (sunspots, total irradiance), and more speculative causes such as orbital oscillations, and cosmic rays.
Temperature is not Heat!
Despite a consensus among scientists on the use of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW, near-surface air temperature (referred to as “surface temperature”) is generally employed to gauge global warming. The media and popular culture have certainly equated the two. But this equation is not simply the product of a naïve misunderstanding. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), directed by James Hansen, and the British Hadley Centre for Climate Change, have consistently promoted the use of surface temperature as a metric for global warming. The highly publicized, monthly global surface temperature has become an icon of the AGW projections made by the IPCC.
However, use of surface air temperature as a metric has weak scientific support, except, perhaps, on a multi-decadal or century time-scale. Surface temperature may not register the accumulation of heat in the climate system from year to year. Heat sinks with high specific heat (like water and ice) can absorb (and radiate) vast amounts of heat. Consequently the oceans and the cryosphere can significantly offset atmospheric temperature by heat transfer creating long time lags in surface temperature response time. Moreover, heat is continually being transported in the atmosphere between the poles and the equator. This reshuffling can create fluctuations in average global temperature caused, in part, by changes in cloud cover and water vapor, both of which can alter the earth’s radiative balance.
Hype generated by scientists and institutions over short-term changes in global temperature (up or down) has diverted us from the real issue: heat accumulation. Heat is not the same as temperature. Two liters of boiling water contain twice as much heat as one liter of boiling water even though the water in both vessels is the same temperature. The larger container has more thermal mass which means it takes longer to heat and cool.
Temperature measures the average kinetic energy of molecular motion at a specific point. But it does not measure the total kinetic energy of all the molecules in a substance. In the example above, there is twice as much heat in 2 liters of boiling water because there is twice as much kinetic energy. On average, the molecules in both vessels are moving at the same speed, but the larger container has twice as many molecules.
Temperature may vary from point to point in a moving fluid such as the atmosphere or ocean, but its heat remains constant so long as energy is not added or removed from the system. Consequently, heat-not temperature-is the only sound metric for monitoring the total energy of the climate system. Since heat is a function of both mass and energy, it is normally measured in Joules per kilogram (or calories per gram):
Q = mc∆T
Where Q is heat (Joules)
m is mass (kg)
c is the specific heat constant of the substance (J/kg/°C)
∆T is the change in temperature (°C)
The Thermal Mass of the Oceans
Water is a more appropriate metric for heat accumulation than air because of its ability to store heat. For this reason, it is also a more robust metric for assessing global warming and cooling. Seawater has a much higher mass than air (1030 kg/m3 vs. 1.20 kg/m3at 20ºC), and a higher specific heat (4.18 kJ/kg/°C vs. 1.01 kJ/kg/°C for air at 23°C and 41% humidity). One kilogram of water can retain 4.18x the heat of an equivalent mass of air. This amounts to a thermal mass which is nearly 3558x that of air per unit volume.
For any given area on the ocean’s surface, the upper 2.6m of water has the same heat capacity as the entire atmosphere above it! Considering the enormous depth and global surface area of the ocean (70.5%), it is apparent that its heat capacity is greater than the atmosphere by many orders of magnitude. Consequently, as Hansen, et. al. have concluded, the ocean must be regarded as the main reservoir of atmospheric heat and the primary driver of climate fluctuations.
Heat accumulating in the climate system can be determined by profiling ocean temperature, and from precise measurements of sea surface height as they relate to thermal expansion and contraction of ocean water. These measurements are now possible on a global scale with the ARGO buoy array and from satellite measurements of ocean surface heights. ARGO consists of a world-wide network of over 3000 free-drifting platforms that measure temperature and salinity in the upper 2000m of ocean. The robotic floats rise to the surface every 10 days and transmit data to a satellite which also determines their location.
Pielke’s Litmus Test
In 2007 Roger Pielke, Sr. suggested that ocean heat should be used not just to monitor the energy imbalance in the climate system, but as a “litmus test” for falsifying the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis (Pielke, “A Litmus Test…”, climatesci.org, April 4, 2007). Dr. Pielke is a Senior Research Scientist in CIRES (Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences), at the University of Colorado in Boulder, and Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins. One of the world’s foremost atmospheric scientists, he has published nearly 350 papers in peer-reviewed journals, 50 chapters in books, and co-edited 9 books.
Pielke’s test compares the net anthropogenic radiative forcing projected by GISS computer models (Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al.) with actual ocean heat as measured by the ARGO array. To calculate the annual projected heat accumulation in the climate system or oceans, radiative forcing (Watts/m2) must be converted to Joules (Watt seconds) and multiplied by the total surface area of the oceans or earth:
[#1] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aearth) .80
or, [#2] Qannum = (Ri Pyear Aocean) .85
Where Qannum is the annual heat accumulation in Joules
Ri is the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance in W/m2
P is the period of time in seconds/year (31,557,600)
Aocean is the total surface area of the oceans in m2 (3.61132 x 1014)
Aearth is the total surface area of the earth in m2 (5.10072 x 1014)
.80 & .85 are reductions for isolating upper ocean heat (see below)
Radiative Imbalance. The IPCC and GISS calculate the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing at ~1.6 W/m2(-1.0, +.8), (see, 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Summary for Policy Makers, figure SPM.2 and Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., page 1434, Table 1). This is the effective total of all anthropogenic forcings on the climate system. Projected heat accumulation is not calculated from this number, but from the mean global anthropogenic radiative imbalance (Ri). According to Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., the imbalance represents that fraction of the total net anthropogenic forcing which the climate system has not yet responded to due to thermal lag (caused primarily by the oceans). The assumption is that since the earth has warmed, a certain amount of energy is required to maintain the current global temperature. Continuing absorption will cause global temperatures to rise further until a new balance is reached.
Physically, the climate system responds to the entire 1.6 W/m2 forcing, not just a portion of it. But while energy is being absorbed, it is also being lost by radiation. The radiative imbalance is better described as the difference between the global mean net anthropogenic radiative forcing and its associated radiative loss. The global radiative imbalance of .75 W/m2 (shown below) would mean that the earth system is radiating .85 W/m2 in response to 1.6 W/m2of total forcing (1.6 – .85 = .75). For a more detailed discussion of radiative equilibrium see, Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: “Heat storage within the Earth system.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 331-335.
Projected Ocean Heat. Since observed heat accumulation is derived from measurements in the upper 700m-750m of the ocean, an “apples to apples” comparison with model projections requires some adjustments. Eq. #1, used by the GISS model, assumes that nearly all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans (80%-90% according to Willis, U.S. CLIVAR, 1, citing Levitus, et. al.). Based on modeling by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al., (page 1432) upper ocean heat is thought to comprise 80% of the total as shown in the illustration. So, the calculated heat must be multiplied by 0.8 to subtract deep ocean heat (below 750m) and heat storage by the atmosphere, land, and cryosphere (see discussion on deep ocean heat and melting ice below).
Another method for calculating heat accumulation is shown in Eq. #2. This method assumes that only 71% (i.e., the fraction of the earth covered by oceans) of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is absorbed by the oceans. Hence, the net global anthropogenic radiative flux is scaled to ocean surface area. To compare to upper ocean measurements, deep ocean heat must be subtracted by multiplying the results by ~0.85. As shown in the illustration above, the deep ocean absorbs about 0.11 W/m2 of the total ocean flux of 0.71 W/m2 (estimates vary, see discussion on deep ocean heat, below). Since this equation is not used by climate models, it is not included in the following tables. But, it is displayed in the graph below as a possible lower limit of projected heat accumulation.
In his blog, “Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions” (climatesci.org, Feb. 9, 2009), Pielke projects heat accumulation based on an upper ocean mean net anthropogenic radiative imbalance of 0.6 W/m2as shown below (see Hanson, Willis, Schmidt et al., 1432). This is only a slight variance from his 2007 blog and affords the best opportunity for the GISS models to agree with observed data. A failure to meet this benchmark would be a robust demonstration of systemic problems.
Observed Ocean Heat. A comparison of these projections to observed data is shown below. Despite expectations of warming, temperature measurements of the upper 700m of the ocean from the ARGO array show no increase from 2003 through 2008. Willis calculates a net loss of -0.12 (±0.35) x 1022Joules per year (Pielke, Physics Today,55) from mid-2003 to the end of 2008 (Dr. Pielke received permission from Josh Willis to extend the ARGO data to the end of 2008).
According to a recent analysis of ARGO data by Craig Loehle, senior scientist at the Illinois-based National Council for Air and Stream Improvement, the loss is -0.35 (±0.2) x 1022Joules per year from mid-2003 to the end of 2007 (see Loehle, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.″ Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4)). Loehle used a more complex method than Willis to calculate this trend, enabling him to reduce the margin of error.
My calculations for observed global heat, shown below, are based on observed upper ocean heat. Since upper ocean heat is calculated to be 80% of the global total (Eq. #1), observed global heat equals approximately 125% (1/0.8) of the observed upper ocean heat.
|
PROJECTED vs. OBSERVED HEAT ACCUMULATION, 2003-2008 (6 YEARS) |
||||
|
Model |
Projected Global Heat Accumulation (Joules x 1022) |
Observed Global Heat Accumulation (Joules x 1022) |
Projected Upper Ocean Heat Accumulation (Joules x 1022) |
Observed Upper Ocean Heat Accumulation (Joules x 1022) |
|
GISS |
7.26 |
-0.83 Willis (5.5 yr) -1.98 Loehle (4.5 yr) |
5.82 |
-0.66 Willis (5.5 yr)-1.58 Loehle (4.5 yr) |
Heat Deficit. The graph below shows the increasing deficit of upper ocean heat from 2003 through 2008 based on GISS projections by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. Actual heat accumulation is plotted from observed data (using ARGO) and shows the overall linear trend (after Willis and Loehle). Seasonal fluctuations and error bars are not shown.
The projection displays a range representing the two ways of calculating heat accumulation discussed above. The upper limit assumes that virtually all of the energy from anthropogenic radiative forcing is eventually absorbed by the oceans (Eq. #1). The lower limit scales the total radiative imbalance to the surface area of the oceans (Eq. #2). The upper limit represents the actual GISS model projection.
The 5.5 year accumulated heat deficit for GISS model projections (red line) ranges from 6.48 x 1022 Joules (using Willis) to 7.92 x 1022 Joules (Loehle, extrapolated to the end of 2008). Pielke is more conservative in his calculations, given the substantial margin of error in Willis’ data (±0.35). Accordingly, he assumes zero heat accumulation for the full 6 year period (2003-2008), yielding a deficit of 5.88 x 1022Joules (Pielke, “Update…”). Loehle’s work, which was not yet known to Pielke in February of 2009, has a much smaller margin of error (±0.2).
|
OCEAN HEAT DEFICIT FOR GISS MODEL PREDICTIONS, MID 2003-2008 (5.5 YEARS) |
||
|
ARGO Data Analyzed by Willis |
ARGO Data Analyzed by Loehle (extrapolated to end of 2008) |
Pielke (based on Willis) |
|
-6.48 x 1022 Joules |
-7.92 x 1022 Joules |
-5.39 x 1022 Joules (-5.88 for 6 full years ) |
These figures reveal a robust failure on the part of the GISS model to project warming. The heat deficit shows that from 2003-2008 there was no positive radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing, despite increasing levels of CO2. Indeed, the radiative imbalance was negative, meaning the earth was losing slightly more energy than it absorbed. Solving for Riin Eq. #1, the average annual upper ocean radiative imbalance ranged from a statistically insignificant -.07 W/m2 (using Willis) to -.22 W/m2(using Loehle).
As Pielke points out (”Update…”), in order for the GISS model to verify by the end of 2012 (i.e., one decade of measurements), the annual radiative imbalance would have to increase to 1.50 W/m2 for the upper ocean which is 2.5x higher than the .6 W/m2projected by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. (1432). This corresponds to an annual average accumulation of 2.45 x 1022 Joules in the upper ocean, or a 4 year total of 9.8 x 1022 Joules.
Using Loehle’s deficit, the numbers are even more remarkable. Assuming that heating resumes for the next 4.5 years (2009 to mid 2013), the annual average accumulation of heat would need to be 2.73 x 1022 Joules in the upper ocean, for a 4.5 year total of 12.29 x 1022 Joules. The derived radiative imbalance for the upper ocean would increase to 1.7 W/m2, or nearly 3x higher than the projected imbalance.
Improbable Explanations for the Failure of Heat Accumulation
Hidden Heat. A few explanations have been proposed for the change in ocean heat. One popular suggestion is that there is “hidden” or “unrealized” heat in the climate system. This heat is being “masked” by the current cooling and will “return with a vengeance” once the cooling abates.
This explanation reveals a fundamental ignorance of thermodynamics and it is disappointing to see scientists suggest it. Since the oceans are the primary reservoir of atmospheric heat, there is no need to account for lag time involved with heat transfer. By using ocean heat as a metric, we can quantify nearly all of the energy that drives the climate system at any given moment. So, if there is still heat “in the pipeline”, where is it? The deficit of heat after nearly 6 years of cooling is now enormous. Heat can be transferred, but it cannot hide. Without a credible explanation of heat transfer, the idea of unrealized heat is nothing more than an evasion.
Deep Ocean Heat. Is it possible that “lost” heat has been transferred to the deep ocean-below the 700 meter limit of our measurements? This appears unlikely. According to Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al., model simulations of ocean heat flow show that 85% of heat storage occurs above 750 m on average (with the range stretching from 78 to 91%) (1432). Moreover, if there is “buried” heat, widespread diffusion and mixing with bottom waters may render it statistically irrelevant in terms of its impact on climate.
The absence of heat accumulation in deep water is corroborated by a recent study of ocean mass and altimetric sea level by Cazenave, et. al. Deep water heat should produce thermal expansion, causing sea level to rise. Instead, steric sea level (which measures thermal expansion plus salinity effects) peaked near the end of 2005, then began to decline nearly steadily. It appears that ocean volume has actually contracted slightly.
Melting Ice. Another possibility is that meltwater from glaciers, sea ice, and ice caps is offsetting heat accumulation. Perhaps the ocean temperature has plateaued as the ice undergoes a phase change from solid to liquid (heat of fusion).
This explanation sounds plausible at first, but it is not supported by observed data or best estimates. In a 2001 paper published in Science, Levitus, et. al. calculates that the absorption of heat due to melting ice amounts to only 6.85% of the total increase in ocean heat during the 41 year period from about 1955 to 1996:
Observed increase in ocean heat (1955-1996) = 1.82 x 1023 J
Observed/estimated heat of fusion (1950’s-1990’s) = 1.247 x 1022 J
This work is quoted by Hansen, Willis, Schmidt, et. al. and further supported by their calculations (1432), which are even more conservative. Given a planetary energy imbalance of approximately +0.75 W/m2, their simulations show that only 5.3% (0.04 W/m2) of the energy is used to warm the atmosphere, the land, and melt ice. The balance of energy is absorbed by the ocean above 750 m (~0.6 W/m2), with a small amount of energy penetrating below 750 m (~0.11 W/m2).
The absorption of heat by melting ice is so small that even if it were to quadruple, the impact on ocean heat would be miniscule.
Cold Biasing. The ARGO array does not provide total geographic coverage. Ocean areas beneath ice are not measured. However, this would have a relatively small impact on total ocean heat since it comprises less than 7% of the ocean. As mentioned above, quality controlled water temperature below 700m is not available, though the floats operate to a depth of 2000m. Above 700m, the analysis performed by Willis includes a quality check of raw data which revealed a cold bias in some instruments. This bias was removed (Willis, CLIVAR, 1).
Loehle warns that the complexities of instrumental drift could conceivably create such artifacts (Loehle, 101), but concludes that his analysis is consistent with satellite and surface data which show no warming for the same period (e.g., see Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: “Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth.” Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 178-189 (13)). So it is unlikely that cold biasing could account for the observed changes in ocean heat.
In brief, we know of no mechanism by which vast amounts of “missing” heat can be hidden, transferred, or absorbed within the earth’s system. The only reasonable conclusion-call it a null hypothesis-is that heat is no longer accumulating in the climate system and there is no longer a radiative imbalance caused by anthropogenic forcing. This not only demonstrates that the IPCC models are failing to accurately predict global warming, but also presents a serious challenge to the integrity of the AGW hypothesis.
Analysis and Conclusion
Though other criteria, such as climate sensitivity (Spencer, Lindzen), can be used to test the AGW hypothesis, ocean heat has one main advantage: Simplicity. While work on climate sensitivity certainly needs to continue, it requires more complex observations and hypotheses making verification more difficult. Ocean heat touches on the very core of the AGW hypothesis: When all is said and done, if the climate system is not accumulating heat, the hypothesis is invalid.
Writing in 2005, Hansen, Willis, Schmidt et al. suggested that GISS model projections had been verified by a solid decade of increasing ocean heat (1993 to 2003). This was regarded as further confirmation the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis. Their expectation was that the earth’s climate system would continue accumulating heat more or less monotonically. Now that heat accumulation has stopped (and perhaps even reversed), the tables have turned. The same criteria used to support their hypothesis, is now being used to falsify it.
It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed.
Assuming the hypothesis is not false, its proponents must now address the failure to skillfully project heat accumulation. Theories pass through stages of development as they are tested against observations. It is possible that the AGW hypothesis is not false, but merely oversimplified. Nevertheless, any refinements must include causal mechanisms which are testable and falsifiable. Arm waiving and ad hoc explanations (such as large margins of error) are not sufficient.
One possibility for the breakdown may relate back to climate sensitivity. It is assumed that most feedbacks are positive, amplifying the slight warming (.3º-1.2ºC) caused by CO2. This may only be partially correct. Perhaps these feedbacks undergo quasi-cyclical changes in tandem with natural fluctuations in climate. The net result might be a more punctuated increase in heat accumulation with possible reversals, rather than a monotonic increase. The outcome would be a much slower rate of warming than currently projected. This would make it difficult to isolate and quantify anthropogenic forcing against the background noise of natural climate signals.
On the other hand, the current lapse in heat accumulation demonstrates a complete failure of the AGW hypothesis to account for natural climate variability, especially as it relates to ocean cycles (PDO, AMO, etc.). If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.
Whether the anthropogenic global warning hypothesis is invalid or merely incomplete, the time has come for serious debate and reanalysis. Since Dr. Pielke first published his challenge in 2007, no critical attempts have been made to explain these failed projections. His blogs have been greeted by the chirping of crickets. In the mean time costly political agendas focused on carbon mitigation continue to move forward, oblivious to recent empirical evidence. Open and honest debate has been marginalized by appeals to consensus. But as history has often shown, consensus is the last refuge of poor science.
References
Cazenave, A., et al., 2008: “Sea level budget over 2003-2008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry, satellite altimetry and Argo,” Glob. Planet. Change, doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2008.10.004.
Douglass, D.H., J.R. Christy, 2009: “Limits on CO2 climate forcing from recent temperature data of Earth.” Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 178-189 (13).
Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, Mki. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, Ju. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G.A. Schmidt, and N. Tausnev, 2005: “Earth’s energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications.” Science, 308, 1431-1435.
IPCC, 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change[Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. See www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf
Levitus, S., J.I. Antonov, J. Wang, T.L. Delworth, K.W. Dixon, and A.J. Broccoli, 2001: “Anthropogenic warming of Earth’s climate system.” Science, 292, 267-268.
Loehle, Craig, 2009: “Cooling of the global ocean since 2003.″ Energy & Environment, Vol. 20, No. 1&2, 101-104(4).
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: “A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system.” Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: “Heat storage within the Earth system.” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 84, 331-335.
Pielke Sr., R.A., “A Litmus Test For Global Warming – A Much Overdue Requirement“, climatesci.org, April 4, 2007.
Pielke Sr., R.A., “Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions“, climatesci.org, Feb. 9, 2009.
Willis, J.K., D. Roemmich, and B. Cornuelle, 2004: “Interannual variability in upper ocean heat content, temperature, and thermosteric expansion on global scales.” J. Geophys. Res., 109, C12036.
Willis, J. K., 2008: “Is it Me, or Did the Oceans Cool?”, U.S. CLIVAR, Sept, 2008, Vol. 6, No. 2.
* William DiPuccio was a weather forecaster for the U.S. Navy, and a Meteorological/Radiosonde Technician for the National Weather Service. More recently, he served as head of the science department for St. Nicholas Orthodox School in Akron, Ohio (closed in 2006). He continues to write science curriculum, publish articles, and conduct science camps.
Sponsored IT training links:
Join pass4sure to kill LX0-102 exam stress. We offer 100% success for 642-566 exam with JN0-400 online training.
Jim Masterson (06:30:15) :
Just for grins, let’s calculate the emissivity for a surface that radiates 68 W/m^2 at a temperature of 288K:
e = (68 W/m^2)/((5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4) = 0.174
I think 0.174 is a little too low. The U.S. Navy at least gives a 0.5 emissivity for the ocean surface (all frequencies).
You’re close to clear up the origin and real magnitude of “window”, but not enough close.
Global emissivity of surface, which includes hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and biosphere, is 0.23. Perhaps you forgot the sensible heat flux from the surface to the outer space and not considering global conditions.
I said in my previous post: “First, let’s see the Global Flux of Energy (G) of the whole system from real measurements under annual mean conditions”:
Generally LW radiation is limited to IR emissivities only. You can argue otherwise, but I think it’s going to be an uphill battle. I would entertain a surface emissivity of around 0.65 (all frequencies). If we calculate a surface flux for an emissivity of 0.65 at a surface temperature of 288K we get:
J = (0.65)*(5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4 = 254 W/m^2
That 68 W/m^2 will need some pumping up. Nothing pumps up flux like feedback.
As I said in my previous post, my numbers were taken from real measurements, so they include natural feedbacks without need of mentioning them. Trenberth et al have the need of inventing quantities for feedbacks; I have not because it’s nature which makes the process, not my computer.
Regarding downwelling radiation from the atmosphere to the surface, as I’ve said in other posts, it is the photon stream from the surface which cancels it during nighttime.
In terms of entropy, it is -29.5 mW/m^2 K for incident solar irradiance upon surface, 71 mW/m^2 K for the sensible heat flux, and 236 mW/m^2 K for terrestrial radiation, which confirms what I’ve said about a global surface emissivity of 0.23.
By the way, feedbacks, or loops, don’t create energy from nothingness and, if there are not more energy inputs from a source with a higher energy density, it would not be increases of heat flux. If one asserts that 238 W/m^2 are transformed in 390 W/m^2 by loops or feedbacks, one would be founded on a sort of miracle.
>> Nasif Nahle (09:03:25) :
You’re close to clear up the origin and real magnitude of “window”, but not enough close. <<
At least I’m improving.
>> Global emissivity of surface, which includes hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and biosphere, is 0.23. <<
So we can calculate your surface flux:
J = (0.23)*(5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4 = 89.7 W/m^2
>> Perhaps you forgot the sensible heat flux from the surface to the outer space and not considering global conditions. <<
Perhaps. I didn’t know that sensible heat flux could transfer energy directly from the surface to outer space. I’ll have to add that to my bag of tricks.
>> As I said in my previous post, my numbers were taken from real measurements, so they include natural feedbacks without need of mentioning them. <<
Stealth feedbacks?
>> Trenberth et al have the need of inventing quantities for feedbacks; I have not because it’s nature which makes the process, not my computer. <<
If we’re talking about up verses down, then Trenberth’s numbers are 390 W/m^2 – 324 W/m^2 = 66 W/m^2. That’s very close to your 68 W/m^2 (without the stealth feedback, of course). So by your own numbers, you have a stealth feedback of 89.7 W/m^2 – 68 W/m^2 = 21.7 W/m^2.
>> In terms of entropy, it is -29.5 mW/m^2 K for incident solar irradiance upon surface, 71 mW/m^2 K for the sensible heat flux, and 236 mW/m^2 K for terrestrial radiation, which confirms what I’ve said about a global surface emissivity of 0.23. <<
I’ll have to chew on those numbers for a while.
>> By the way, feedbacks, or loops, don’t create energy from nothingness and, if there are not more energy inputs from a source with a higher energy density, it would not be increases of heat flux. If one asserts that 238 W/m^2 are transformed in 390 W/m^2 by loops or feedbacks, one would be founded on a sort of miracle. <<
With steady-state systems, it’s possible to store energy temporarily in feedback loops. By your logic, dams wouldn’t work. For about the same stream/river flow rate, a dam will increase the force on the turbine blades in a power plant and multiply the power output. It’s another sort of miracle!
Jim
Never mind angels on pin heads can anyone give an answer to my earlier post.
There have been some useful links given above. It seems to me that the OHC calculations of Levitus et al. seem to confirm the IPCC models or even exceed the predictions, thereby giving major support to the warmists. In the discussion above I cannot see any serious criticism of these results.
There is discrepancy of about 8 J *10/22(+7 to minus 1) between the Levitus approach and that of Willis and Loele. Am I missing something? The volume of ocean is pretty much defined i.e the area of the ocean is a known to within some reasonable degree of accuracy and the depth assumed in the calculations is set at 700m and surely the temperature variation cannot account for this degree of difference.. So what has generated this degree of disparity?
Jim Masterson (12:00:32) :
Global emissivity of surface, which includes hydrosphere, lithosphere, cryosphere and biosphere, is 0.23. <<
So we can calculate your surface flux:
J = (0.23)*(5.670400*10^-8 W/m^2/K^4)*(288K)^4 = 89.7 W/m^2
Yes, now your calculation is correct.
Perhaps you forgot the sensible heat flux from the surface to the outer space and not considering global conditions. <<
Perhaps. I didn’t know that sensible heat flux could transfer energy directly from the surface to outer space. I’ll have to add that to my bag of tricks.
No trick for your bag, sorry:
Sensible heat flux from the surface = 20.4 W/m^2
Terrestrial Radiation from Earth’s surface = 20.4 W/m^2
As I said in my previous post, my numbers were taken from real measurements, so they include natural feedbacks without need of mentioning them. <<
Stealth feedbacks?
Nope, those are real measurements taken directly from nature, so feedbacks are working into the matrix; no matter if I mentioned them or not.
Trenberth et al have the need of inventing quantities for feedbacks; I have not because it’s nature which makes the process, not my computer. <<
If we’re talking about up verses down, then Trenberth’s numbers are 390 W/m^2 – 324 W/m^2 = 66 W/m^2. That’s very close to your 68 W/m^2 (without the stealth feedback, of course). So by your own numbers, you have a stealth feedback of 89.7 W/m^2 – 68 W/m^2 = 21.7 W/m^2.
If 248 W/m^2 are the measured energy incoming from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere, and Trenberth consigns 390 W/m^2, hasn’t he created energy from the nothingness?
Your numbers are wrong… Trenberth pictured 390 W/m^2 for a magic energy emitted from the surface to the atmosphere and another load of magic energy radiated from the atmosphere to the surface of 333 W/m^2. Trenberth’s adds a magic absorptivity of surface equal to 100% and another magic emissivity of the air equal to 100%. Thus, your numbers are wrong:
390 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 57 W/m^2
The difference between that magic number and the real radiation emitted by surface plus the sensible heat flux is quite high (88.4 – 57 = 31.4).
Besides, I’m not inventing the cipher, you can measure it with a good radiometer or, at least, investigate them at NOAA’s website, while Trenberth has invented those magic ciphers.
In terms of entropy, it is -29.5 mW/m^2 K for incident solar irradiance upon surface, 71 mW/m^2 K for the sensible heat flux, and 236 mW/m^2 K for terrestrial radiation, which confirms what I’ve said about a global surface emissivity of 0.23. <<
I’ll have to chew on those numbers for a while.
It’s easy: s = G/T
By the way, feedbacks, or loops, don’t create energy from nothingness and, if there are not more energy inputs from a source with a higher energy density, it would not be increases of heat flux. If one asserts that 238 W/m^2 are transformed in 390 W/m^2 by loops or feedbacks, one would be founded on a sort of miracle. <<
With steady-state systems, it’s possible to store energy temporarily in feedback loops. By your logic, dams wouldn’t work. For about the same stream/river flow rate, a dam will increase the force on the turbine blades in a power plant and multiply the power output. It’s another sort of miracle!
Again, it’s not my logic… Are real measurements. Besides, I’ve said that quantum loops, feedbacks, quantum tunnels, etc., don’t create energy from the nothingness. It’s obvious that Trenberth et al consigns a high excess of energy which has not even been absorbed by the surface.
How is it possible that the surface had absorbed 68 W/m^2 of energy and had emitted 390 W/m^2? Aren’t Trenberth et al talking about energy balance?
Nasif Nahle,
Would you mind providing references for your real measurements taken directly from nature? It would make it easier for the discussion to progress if everyone is able to look at the same measurements.
Meanwhile I can show you two tanks of water which are feeding water into each other at an enormous rate; yet the total volume in each tank is hardly changing, and no water is being created by quantum or any other means.
Spen (12:22:01) :
Yes, thank you for reraising a more important question for this thread. I would also like to know, if anyone can offer insight on the discrepancy.
“”” Nasif Nahle (12:52:25) :
anna v (04:00:02) :
Nasif Nahle (17:38:28) :
In your reply to George E. Smith (10:26:44)
I know, Dr. Smith, that you don’t agree with theories on photon-photon interactions because you have clearly expressed it in one of your posts. However, there are experiments in colliders which have demonstrated a sort of photon-photon interactions. “””
I’m not sure who wrote the above; whether Anna or Nasif; but for the record; I have no idea who Dr. smith might be, although I am sure there is one somewhere; maybe several; but I’m not one of them. I merely have a lowly Bachelor’s degree; but given that it is from the University of Auckland (1957) it might be more or less equivalent to some PhDs. I passed on the Masters and Doctorate, in favor of the same number of years out in Industry actually doing Physics, and Mathematics, rather than just reading about it.
So please don’t annoint me with any shingles I haven’t earned.
But speaking of photon-photon interractions, for photons in the solar spectrum range, and earth emitted IR range; what would be the crossections for such photon-photon interrations.
But if Nasif wants to insist that the incoming solar photons stop the exit of long wave IR photons from surface thermal emissions; then I would have to plead total ignorance of such a process; but then that’s why I am here; to learn something.
George
Given that the change in the heat content of an object or system with fixed mass is measured by recording the change in it’s temperature, I’m not sure how significant the distinction is between monitoring global warming by a heat accounting method or an average temperature accounting method. What does strike me as significant is the fact that, for ocean water to act as a sink for the additional heat generated by manmade CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, the atmosphere has to rise in temperature (gain heat content) so that the added heat can be transferred to the oceans. It also seems logical to me that the temperature increase in the atmosphere has to precede the temperature increase in the oceans or the land surface, meaning that the long-term changes in temperature anomolies for the atmosphere (normalized for mass/thermal capacity) should be steeper than the corresponding long term anomoly changes for the land and ocean surfaces. However, we seem to observe the reverse happening – the satellite measurements of the atmospheric temperature are recording a lower rate of temperature increase than that shown by NASA’s land-ocean surface temperature index. If not falsifying the global warming hypothesis, it should certainly set a limit on the amount of the actual warming that could possibly be attributed to CO2 – i.e. the actual rate of warming due to CO2 is better reflected in the lower-anomoly atmospheric measurements than the higher-anomoly ocean/surface measurements, because the former is where the anthropogenic signal originates and the latter is where it accumulates.
“”” Jim Masterson (11:52:49) :
>> George E. Smith (11:40:18) :
. . . for some reason that 324 W/m^2 of back radiation is much more than the 168 W/m^2 from the sun. (I’m not kidding; these are NOAA’s numbers) <<
Actually, George, those numbers come from a paper by Kiehl and Trenberth 1997 (see figure seven). The numbers have changed slightly because of a new paper (see figure one). The first paper has several errors and the second paper doesn’t correct them. If I had the time and the inclination I would discuss them with you.
Jim “””
Hey Jim,
Thanks for those two papers. I got those numbers from a fancy bright colored diagram somewhere on a NOAA site; but I’m not surprised they have some other original origin.
Of course I don’t agree with that diagram; because I am sure there is no planet of interest to us where that takes place. I’m not used to a planet that is totally inside a hollow sun which emits a uniform radiation from all over its inner surface but with a very limited 0.5 degree total angular divergence, so that every point on the planet sees a half degree diameter sun directly overhead 24 hours a day 365 days a year.
I’m used to an insolation level that is more like 1 kW/m^2 but only at those points on earth that are in daylight, and only for those daylight hours. Such a planet is going to react quite differently from Trenberth et al’s planet.
So I’m curious about those spectral pictures in the papers, with the CO2 and ozone holes in them. Are they computer calculated curves; or are they actual observations, say from outer space; of the emissions from this planet.
I’m familiar with the general shape of them, including the significant difference between the ozone band and the CO2 band shapes; but my source of similar curves (The Infra-Red Handbook) has only theoretical curves; not measured ones; and I’m not gung ho on the accuracy of any theory that might have been used.
Thanks again Jim
George
“”” oms (11:59:38) :
George E. Smith (11:00:16) :
the basically simple process of convection due to expansion caused by heating by solar radiation never stops; hot water rises (unless some other physical or chemical change such as salinity creates an even greater density gradient in a different direction);
Ocean convection is a mirror image of the atmosphere. Solar heating heats the ocean surface most and progressively less with increasing depth; hence solar heating tends to increase, not decrease, convective stability in the tropical ocean. Meanwhile, cooling and evaporation at high latitudes (in the relative absence of solar heating) produces cold, salty water which does sink. Thus the convection has to be viewed in the context of a large scale meridional circulation, not in a local 1-d balance. “””
And repeating this: “Meanwhile, cooling and evaporation at high latitudes (in the relative absence of solar heating) produces cold, salty water which does sink. ”
Sounds to me that cooling and evaporation at high latitiudes; is a purely surface phenomenon, and as those surface layers cool by energy loss to the atmosphere, the solar warmed deeper waters must continue to rise until they become the cool and evaporating layers. Then I agree at that point the colder water can sink; but I don’t see how it can sink while carrying its load of solar energy.
So I still maintain that the solar warmed layers must rise to the surface and give up their thermal energy excess, before they move into the colder polar regions where they can sink to complete the loop. The soalr energy is returned to the atmosphere for radiation to space; it is not stored in the deep oceans.
George
George E. Smith (16:46:18) :
So are you arguing that there is a general circulation in the ocean and that it is important?
oms (15:10:10) :
Nasif Nahle,
Would you mind providing references for your real measurements taken directly from nature? It would make it easier for the discussion to progress if everyone is able to look at the same measurements.
Meanwhile I can show you two tanks of water which are feeding water into each other at an enormous rate; yet the total volume in each tank is hardly changing, and no water is being created by quantum or any other means.
Manrique. Transferencia de Calor. 2002. Oxford University Press. Page 285.
Peixoto and Oort. Physics of Climate. 1992. Springer-Verlag New York. Pp. 366-410.
NOAA: Gunn, J., 1993, Global Energy Balances Data Set.IGBP PAGES/World Data Center-A for Paleoclimatology Data Contribution Series # 93-006.
BTW, I didn’t say it; Trenberth et al suggest it in their diagram on energy budget. 🙂
George E. Smith (15:45:20):
Nasif Nahle (17:38:28) :
In your reply to George E. Smith (10:26:44)
I know, Dr. Smith, that you don’t agree with theories on photon-photon interactions because you have clearly expressed it in one of your posts. However, there are experiments in colliders which have demonstrated a sort of photon-photon interactions.
I’m not sure who wrote the above; whether Anna or Nasif; but for the record; I have no idea who Dr. smith might be, although I am sure there is one somewhere; maybe several; but I’m not one of them. I merely have a lowly Bachelor’s degree; but given that it is from the University of Auckland (1957) it might be more or less equivalent to some PhDs. I passed on the Masters and Doctorate, in favor of the same number of years out in Industry actually doing Physics, and Mathematics, rather than just reading about it.
So please don’t annoint me with any shingles I haven’t earned.
It was me who wrote Dr. Smith. My mistake.
But speaking of photon-photon interractions, for photons in the solar spectrum range, and earth emitted IR range; what would be the crossections for such photon-photon interrations.
Your mistake… I didn’t talk about photon-photon interactions in the solar spectrum range. I said that you, George E. Smith, were dennying the photon-photon interactions when it has been demonstrated they occur in colliders.
Besides, I’m talking about interactions of photons with matter, i.e. particles, atoms and molecules.
But if Nasif wants to insist that the incoming solar photons stop the exit of long wave IR photons from surface thermal emissions; then I would have to plead total ignorance of such a process; but then that’s why I am here; to learn something.
Another mistake on your side. I have not said that the incoming solar photon stream stops the exit of LW IR photons from surface thermal emissions. I said that the photon stream induces the negative absorption of photons from molecules in the same direction of the photon stream overwhelming to the spontaneous emission.
I see that you are not understanding the meaning of spontaneous emission, induced negative absorption and induced absorption, so I could help you, if you wish.
Nasif
BTW, I said also that, during nighttime the surface photon stream overwhelms the spontaneous emission of photons by the air, so the so called downwelling radiation during nighttime is a fairies tale.
The heat stored during daytime by the surface (land and oceans) and subsurface materials is what warms the air during nighttime. There is not such warming of the surface by the energy radiated by the air during nighttime. It’s another fairies tale.
Another fairies tale is with respect to an AGW assertion on line on the sense that convection stops during nighttime. Actually, convection doesn’t stop at any moment; what happens is that natural convection prevails during nighttime when the Earth is not affected by the solar forcing external operator (during nighttime, of course).
Spen: “There is discrepancy of about 8 J *10/22(+7 to minus 1) between the Levitus approach and that of Willis and Loele. Am I missing something?”
For the period from 2003-2008 (covered by my paper) the Levitus article shows very little change in ocean heat on average (there are always going to be seasonal variations). See:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ with link to….
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
In the decade from 1993-2003 there was a large increase (~1×10^22 Joules/year) which was taken as confirmation of AGW.
What if it is just a matter of warm water being pushed off to the side and piling up next to a land mass, revealing colder layers that get mixed with the left over warm choppy seas stuff that didn’t hitch a ride on the Coriolis wind? Then the warm stuff slowly gets circulated to a “vent” somewhere (poles? standing evaporation?). Of course, there is a slow deep sea current that slides down one side of the ocean and wells up on the other side, but what if this is not the mechanism? What if it is simply the cyclic wind pushing surface warmed water off to the side? So then the question is what causes the trade winds to build up and then die down. And, what kind of cycles do these trade winds have? Simple ones or complicated ones? Is it like a double dutch jump-rope beat with a single rope inside on quick time using a syncopated beat? (I used to be able to do that)
∆T = α (ln2) / 4 (σ) (T STD) ^3 = 3.7 (W/m^2) / 5.43 (W/m^2 °C) = 0.7 °C
However, considering the current concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere (385 ppmV) the change of temperature caused by the CO2 is unimportant:
∆T = 1.7 (W/m^2) / 5.43 (W/m^2 °C) = 0.3 °C
More basic algorithms give the same results:
q = 0.001 (5.6697 x 10^-1 (J/s)/m^2 K ^4) (T^4) = 0.4 J/s
0.4 (J/s)
∆T = ———————- (1 s) = 0.7 °C
0.00064 Kg (842 J/Kg °C)
For a real temperature of air; today, for example:
T of air = 307.15 K
q = 0.114 W
∆T by CO2 = 0.2 K
0.2 K out from a total ∆T of 19 K!!!
Change to water vapor, ground, ground subsurface materials, oceans and photon streams and the thing is easily solved.
>> Nasif Nahle (14:28:01) :
Yes, now your calculation is correct. <<
My calculation would need a correct surface temperature (288K) too. Are you saying that 288K is the correct average surface temperature?
>> No trick for your bag, sorry: <<
That’ll make it easier to carry.
>> Sensible heat flux from the surface = 20.4 W/m^2
Terrestrial Radiation from Earth’s surface = 20.4 W/m^2 <<
I don’t understand you implication here. First you say that sensible heat and IR window fluxes just happen to have the same value. Now are you saying they are the same flows? Aren’t you mixing apples and oranges?
>> Nope, those are real measurements taken directly from nature, so feedbacks are working into the matrix; no matter if I mentioned them or not. <<
It’s difficult to model feedbacks when they aren’t specified. A bistable multivibrator (flip-flop) wouldn’t work without two explicit feedbacks.
>> If 248 W/m^2 are the measured energy incoming from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere, and Trenberth consigns 390 W/m^2, hasn’t he created energy from the nothingness? <<
Not necessarily.
>> Your numbers are wrong… <<
You’re not the first to tell me so.
>> Trenberth pictured 390 W/m^2 for a magic energy emitted from the surface to the atmosphere and another load of magic energy radiated from the atmosphere to the surface of 333 W/m^2. . . . Thus, your numbers are wrong:
390 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 57 W/m^2 <<
You’re confusing your papers. 390 W/m^2 comes from KT97, and 333 W/m^2 comes from TFK09.
You should either use KT97: 390 W/m^2 – 324 W/m^2 = 66 W/m^2;
or use TFK09: 396 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 63 W/m^2
>> Trenberth’s adds a magic absorptivity of surface equal to 100% and another magic emissivity of the air equal to 100%. <<
Don’t you like magic?
>> The difference between that magic number and the real radiation emitted by surface plus the sensible heat flux is quite high (88.4 – 57 = 31.4). <<
Shouldn’t that be (88.4 W/m^2 – 63 W/m^2 = 25.4 W/m^2) or is it (88.4 W/m^2 – 66 W/m^2 = 22.4 W/m^2)? (I have no clue as to what this calculation is supposed to indicate.)
>> Besides, I’m not inventing the cipher, you can measure it with a good radiometer or, at least, investigate them at NOAA’s website, while Trenberth has invented those magic ciphers. <<
Unfortunately, he’s not alone.
>> It’s easy: s = G/T <<
Entropy is not my strong suit. Just ask my thermodynamics professor–if he’s still alive.
>> How is it possible that the surface had absorbed 68 W/m^2 of energy and had emitted 390 W/m^2? Aren’t Trenberth et al talking about energy balance? <<
They could be. All I’m saying is that I can model Trenberth’s numbers and get some interesting results. Your numbers would be harder to model. Stealth feedbacks would probably render the model useless.
Jim
Jim Masterson (07:28:31) :
My calculation would need a correct surface temperature (288K) too. Are you saying that 288K is the correct average surface temperature?
Did I say it?
No trick for your bag, sorry: <<
That’ll make it easier to carry.
Good for you…
Sensible heat flux from the surface = 20.4 W/m^2
Terrestrial Radiation from Earth’s surface = 20.4 W/m^2
I don’t understand you implication here. First you say that sensible heat and IR window fluxes just happen to have the same value. Now are you saying they are the same flows? Aren’t you mixing apples and oranges?
Again, did I say they are the same flows?
Nope, those are real measurements taken directly from nature, so feedbacks are working into the matrix; no matter if I mentioned them or not.
It’s difficult to model feedbacks when they aren’t specified. A bistable multivibrator (flip-flop) wouldn’t work without two explicit feedbacks.
I’m not writing here a physics of climate treatise. Check those feedbacks out from Physics of Climate by Peixoto and Oort.
If 248 W/m^2 are the measured energy incoming from the Sun at the top of the atmosphere, and Trenberth consigns 390 W/m^2, hasn’t he created energy from the nothingness?
Not necessarily.
If you have a plausible explanation on Trenberth’s creation of energy from nothingness, consign it here. It’s your opportunity.
>> Trenberth pictured 390 W/m^2 for a magic energy emitted from the surface to the atmosphere and another load of magic energy radiated from the atmosphere to the surface of 333 W/m^2. . . . Thus, your numbers are wrong:
390 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 57 W/m^2 <<
You’re confusing your papers. 390 W/m^2 comes from KT97, and 333 W/m^2 comes from TFK09.
You should either use KT97: 390 W/m^2 – 324 W/m^2 = 66 W/m^2;
or use TFK09: 396 W/m^2 – 333 W/m^2 = 63 W/m^2
Anyway, your comparison is wrong.
Trenberth’s adds a magic absorptivity of surface equal to 100% and another magic emissivity of the air equal to 100%. <<
Don’t you like magic?
I like only good magic performed by professional magicians. I don’t like pseudoscientific magic.
Shouldn’t that be (88.4 W/m^2 – 63 W/m^2 = 25.4 W/m^2) or is it (88.4 W/m^2 – 66 W/m^2 = 22.4 W/m^2)? (I have no clue as to what this calculation is supposed to indicate.)
If considering your magic numbers, yes, it should be 25.4 W/m^2. Anyway, your comparison is wrong.
Besides, I’m not inventing the cipher, you can measure it with a good radiometer or, at least, investigate them at NOAA’s website, while Trenberth has invented those magic ciphers. <<
Unfortunately, he’s not alone.
I’m not alone, either; however, that’s not evidence that any of us is wrong or right. Trenberth’s numbers don’t coincide with reality; my numbers coincide with reality.
Would you say that a model is more real than reality?
It’s easy: s = G/T <<
Entropy is not my strong suit. Just ask my thermodynamics professor–if he’s still alive.
Perhaps that’s the reason you trust on Trenberth’s magic? The first law of thermodynamics chops his numbers.
How is it possible that the surface had absorbed 68 W/m^2 of energy and had emitted 390 W/m^2? Aren’t Trenberth et al talking about energy balance? <<
They could be. All I’m saying is that I can model Trenberth’s numbers and get some interesting results. Your numbers would be harder to model. Stealth feedbacks would probably render the model useless.
What feedbacks do you need? Aren’t they the same feedbacks used on your models? I’ll help you on those feedbacks which you cannot find on calculations; just tell me what feedbacks you need for modeling. It would be easy for me.
It seems that you think a measurement taken from nature is not valid because it doesn’t disclose feedbacks. What you’re arguing is that a measurement of Temperature or radiative energy is wrong because it doesn’t disclose feedbacks. That’s not the way scientists work.
Re Nasif and Jim M donnybrook above; I just presumed that the 390W/m^2 emitted from the surface (which I got from a NOAA site) is just the expected Black body radiation for a +15 deg C temperature (about 288K). That’s a reasonable number I suppose for the ocean surfaces, because the deep oceans ought to appear pretty much black for radiation longer than about 10 microns.
I don’t like the use of the budget that Trenberth et al usggest, because it is not a true representation of what the earth’s surface really does. The temperature is not 15C all over but can be anywhere in the extrewme range from -90C to over +60C, and the BB radiation over that range has about a 12:1 ratio; so hot lenad surfaces can be emitting twice that 390 number; at the same time as Antarctic winter nights are meitting six times less; not to mention the Wien spectrum displacement which will modify the importance of CO2 depending on the terrain and local temperature.
It is the temperature averaging that I disagree with, since it underestimates the total surface emissions. The general spectral shapes in those Trenberth et al papers do seem quite BB in shape with some grey factor plus some “color” distortions due to CO2 and ozone.
I’m surprised to not see much in the way of water absorption; which should have major impacts on those shapes; which leads me to wonder if those curves are computer models rather that actual real world observations.
As to feedbacks; it makes no sense to me to talk about feedbacks unless you are willing to put in the real time or frequency response relating to those feedback mechanisms; because in my experience almost any system involving thermal effects; ends up being an oscillator if there are any feedbacks.
Water vapor absorption and subsequent heating (meaning more water evaporation, and more warming) is certainly something that does not need any stimulus input from CO2 or anything else.
In my view, water vapor feedback ‘enhancement’ of CO2 induced warming is a crutch that is necessary to prop up the unsupportable Arrhenius CO2 global warming thesis; and the concept of a “climate sensitivity” number whether 1.2 deg C for doubled CO2 or some other number (pick one); that seems to be a backbone of standard climatology greenhouse theory is total nonsense.
Given that the earth’s surface radiant emittance varies by more than an order of magnitude depending on location and terrain; even assuming a uniform constant CO2 abundance worldwide; the warming effect of CO2 cannot be any universal number like “climate sensitivity” connotes; and trying to devise some sort of average number to represent that, immediately raises the whole issue of sampling regimen validity all over again.
If this is the state of that “science” then we are all in trouble.
George
“”” oms (17:04:51) :
George E. Smith (16:46:18) :
So I still maintain that the solar warmed layers must rise to the surface and give up their thermal energy excess, before they move into the colder polar regions where they can sink to complete the loop. The soalr energy is returned to the atmosphere for radiation to space; it is not stored in the deep oceans.
So are you arguing that there is a general circulation in the ocean and that it is important? “””
Well OMS, I wouldn’t exactly say that I have been making that argument; in fact I would have to plead considerable ignorance relating to those circulations. But now that you ask the question; yes I am quite sure there are general circulations in the oceans, and also in the atmosphere; both of which result in global transport of thermal energies from place to place; and yes I am quite sure they are important as regards the local climate of various geographical regions; as well as having an effect on global energy balance.
But believe me, I am way out of my league when it comes to the hows and whys of those circulations; and I’m too long in the tooth to go and take a course in meteorology; specially since I have some extremely knowledgable meteorologist friends.
So I am pretty much ignorant of what causes el ninos, and la ninas, and PDOs and their Atlantic cousins; but I suspect that the folks who study those things do know what makes them tick.
So being basically a physicist, I tend to stay with the basic energy balance question; and to me it seems pretty obvious that water in its three phases in the environment pretty much has total feedback control of the earth’s temperature range; and we couldn’t change that much either up or down, if we wanted to; and CO2 has almost no say in the matter in my view.
But yes circulations exist and I believe they are important; and I am too ignorant in that area to comment much rationally.
George
Dipuccio wrote: “Willis provides the quality controlled ARGO data set. So he would not have granted permission to Pielke without basing it on actual observations.”
No, Willis hasn’t evaluated if your extrapolation of the Willis-curve is in line with observations past 2007, and granted permission to extrapolate based on such an evaluation. I asked Willis about this, and he answered that the trend line shown in the plot (the green “willis-curve” in your plot) simply was a fit to his data through mid-2007 when the ocean heat content was a bit low. He also said that there is a significant amount of interannual variability in ocean heat content, which causes problems when you try and compare just a few years of OHC-observations with IPCC projections.
In your “paper” you haven’t really made it clear that the green Willis-curve is an extrapolation. You should do that the next time you try to write something
scientific.
Bill DiPuccio (18:37:51) :
“For the period from 2003-2008 (covered by my paper) the Levitus article shows very little change in ocean heat on average (there are always going to be seasonal variations). See:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/ with link to….
ftp://ftp.nodc.noaa.gov/pub/data.nodc/woa/PUBLICATIONS/grlheat08.pdf
In the decade from 1993-2003 there was a large increase (~1×10^22 Joules/year) which was taken as confirmation of AGW.
Sorry. But your graph shows (Willis and Loehle) a change OHC of minus 0.4 and 1.5 between 2003 and 2008. NOAA shows plus 6. I think 100% different is significant. Interestingly GISS is plus 5. Please help me with my interpretation
Spen: Sorry. But your graph shows (Willis and Loehle) a change OHC of minus 0.4 and 1.5 between 2003 and 2008. NOAA shows plus 6. I think 100% different is significant. Interestingly GISS is plus 5. Please help me with my interpretation
NOAA Graph: http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
Assuming the graph is drawn accurately, if you examine it carefully (I enlarged it and drew guidelines), from mid-2003 to 2008, there is a difference of about 2 from endpoint to endpoint. That is the period covered by my study. I did not analyze the data myself so I cannot explain why there is a variation between Willis, Loehle, and NOAA. But it is obvious that following the sharp rise there is a flattening.
Tata: No, Willis hasn’t evaluated if your extrapolation of the Willis-curve is in line with observations past 2007, and granted permission to extrapolate based on such an evaluation. I asked Willis about this, and he answered that the trend line shown in the plot (the green “willis-curve” in your plot) simply was a fit to his data through mid-2007 when the ocean heat content was a bit low….
See Pielke, http://climatesci.org/2009/02/09/update-on-a-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/
“We now have data to assess what actually occurred in terms of this metric of global warming up through the end of 2008 (i.e. see the Figure in Pielke (2008), Figure 1 in Willis et al (2008) and personal communication from Josh Willis to extend the data to the end of 2008).”
Let’s not miss the forest through the trees. As mentioned above, even the NOAA data and Levitus study shows that the curve has flattened significantly since mid-2003. If the 10 years prior was considered confirmation of the hypothesis, then we need to ask what is the significance of this more recent trend.