Dr. Roger Pielke Senior posted this today, since he has no comments on his blog, I felt it would be good to repost it here to allow discussion – Anthony
There is an excellent collection of interviews posted by Sam Patterson on April 23 2011 on the weblog Climatequotes.com titled
I have reposted his very informative set of interviews and commentary below.
_________________________________________________
From: Climatequotes.com
Note: I wrote this post many weeks ago and never posted it because I was waiting for some more feedback. However, Pielke Sr. has posted specifically on this issue recently and Watts ran it also, so I feel now is a good time to post it.
This post deals with the the question of whether or not climate sensitivity should be measured by global average surface temperature anomaly. I asked multiple climate scientists their opinion, and their responses are below. First, some background.
Over at The Blackboard there is an interesting guest post by Zeke. He attempts to find areas where agreement can take place by laying out his beliefs and putting a certain confidence level on them. This idea was commented upon by several blogs and scientists. Judith Curry, Anthony Watts, Jeff Id, and Pielke Sr. all contributed. I want to focus on Pielke’s response, because he challenges a core assumption of the exercise.
In Zeke’s post, he gives his position on climate sensitivity:
Climate sensitivity is somewhere between 1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide, due to feedbacks (primarily water vapor) in the climate system…
Here is Pielke’s response to this claim:
The use of the terminology “climate sensitivity” indicates an importance of the climate system to this temperature range that does not exist. The range of temperatures of “1.5 C and 4.5 C for a doubling of carbon dioxide” refers to a global annual average surface temperature anomaly that is not even directly measurable, and its interpretation is even unclear…
Pielke goes on to explain that he has dealt with this issue previously in the paper entitled “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends.” Here is the main thrust of his response:
This view of a surface temperature anomaly expressed by “climate sensitivity” is grossly misleading the public and policymakers as to what are the actual climate metrics that matter to society and the environment. A global annual average surface temperature anomaly is almost irrelevant for any climatic feature of importance.
So we know Pielke’s position. He is adamantly opposed to using surface temperature anomaly when discussing climate sensitivity, for various reasons, not the least of which is it ignores metrics which actually matter to people.
I haven’t heard this view expressed very often, so I decided to contact other climate scientists and find out their opinions on this issue. I asked the following questions and invited them to give their general impressions:
1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?
If yes to Question 1, then:
2. Could you briefly explain why you consider global annual average surface temperature anomaly the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?
If no to question 1, then:
2. What do you believe is the proper metric to discuss climate sensitivity, and could you briefly explain why?
John Christy
1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?
No. The surface temperature, especially the nighttime minimum, is affected by numerous factors unrelated to the global atmospheric sensitivity to enhanced greenhouse forcing (I have several papers on this.) The ultimate metric is the number of joules of energy in the system (are they increasing? at what rate?). The ocean is the main source for this repository of energy. A second source, better than the surface, but not as good as the ocean, is the bulk atmospheric temperature (as Roy Spencer uses for climate sensitivity and feedback studies.) The bulk atmosphere represents a lot of mass, and so tells us more about the number of joules that are accumulating.
Patrick Michaels
I think it is a reasonable metric in that it integrates the response of temperature where it is important–i.e. where most things on earth live. However, it needs to be measured in concert with ocean measurements at depth and with both tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures. For example, if there were no stratospheric decline in temperature, then lower tropospheric or surface rises would be hard to attribute to ghg changes. Because we don’t have any stratospheric proxy (that I know of) for the early 20th century, when surface temperature rose about as much as they rose in the late 20th, we really don’t know the ghg component of that (though I suspect it was little to none).
Having said that, I suspect that where we do have such data, it is indicative that the sensitivity is lower than generally assumed, but not as low as has been hypothesized by some.
Gavin Schmidt
Your questions are unfortunately rather ill-posed. This is probably not your fault, but it is indicative of the confusion on these points that exist.
“Climate sensitivity” is *defined* as being the equilibrium response of the global mean surface temperature to a change in radiative forcing while holding a number of things constant (aerosols, ice sheets, vegetation, ozone) (c.f. Charney 1979, Hansen et al, 1984 and thousands of publications since). There is no ambiguity here, no choice of metrics to examine, and no room for any element of belief or non-belief. It is a definition. There are of course different estimates of the surface temperature anomaly, but that isn’t relevant for your question.
There are of course many different metrics that might be sensitive to radiative forcings that one might be interested in: Rainfall patterns, sea ice extent, ocean heat content, winds, cloudiness, ice sheets, ecosystems, tropospheric temperature etc. Since they are part of the climate, they will be sensitive to climate change to some extent. But the specific terminology of “climate sensitivity” or the slightly expanded concept of “Earth System Sensitivity” (i.e Lunt et al, 2010) (that includes the impact on the surface temperature of the variations in the elements held constant in the Charney definition), are very specific and tied directly to surface temperature.
People can certainly hold opinions about which, if any, of these metrics are of interest to them or are important in some way, and I wouldn’t want to prevent anyone from making their views known on this. But people don’t get to redefine commonly-understood and widely-used terms on that basis.
I sent a response to Gavin clarifying my questions, and including Pielke Sr’s comments. Here is his response to Pielke’ comments:
I disagree. Prof. Pielke might not find the global temperature anomaly interesting, but lots of other people do, and as an indicator for other impacts, it is actually pretty good. Large-scale changes in rainfall patterns, sea ice amount, etc. all scale more or less with SAT. (They can vary independently of course, and so ‘one number’ does not provide a comprehensive description of what’s happening).
Kevin Trenberth
1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?
This is not a well posed question. This relates to definition: the sensitivity is defined that way. It is not the best metric for climate change necessarily
If yes to Question 1, then:
2. Could you briefly explain why you consider global annual average surface temperature anomaly the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?
I think the best metric overall is probably global sea level as it cuts down on weather and related noise. But global mean temperature can be carried back in time more reliably and it is reasonably good as long as decadal values are used.
If no to question 1, then:
2. What do you believe is the proper metric to discuss climate sensitivity, and could you briefly explain why?
However, it is all variables collectively that make a sound case
Pielke Sr.
We have already discussed Pielke’s position, but I contacted him to find out what metrics he would prefer to use. Here is his response:
1. Do you believe that global annual average surface temperature anomaly
is the best available metric to discuss climate sensitivity?
NO
If yes to Question 1, then:
2. Could you briefly explain why you consider global annual average
surface temperature anomaly the best available metric to discuss
climate sensitivity?
If no to question 1, then:
2. What do you believe is the proper metric to discuss climate
sensitivity, and could you briefly explain why?
The term “climate sensitivity” is not an accurate term to define how the climate system responds to forcing, when it is used to state a response in just the global average surface temperature. This is more than a semantic issue, as the global average surface temperature trend has been the primary metric used to communicate climate effects of human activities to policymakers. The shortcoming of this metric (the global average surface temperature trend) was discussed in depth in
“National Research Council, 2005: Radiative forcing of climate change: Expanding the concept and addressing uncertainties. Committee on Radiative Forcing Effects on Climate Change, Climate Research Committee, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Division on Earth and Life Studies, The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 208 pp. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/“
but has been mostly ignored in assessments such as the 2007 IPCC WG1 report.
A more appropriate metric to assess the sensitivity of the climate system heat content to forcing is the response in Joules of the oceans, particularly where most the heat changes occur. I discuss this metric in
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2008: A broader view of the role of humans in the climate system. Physics Today, 61, Vol. 11, 54-55.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-334.pdf
Pielke Sr., R.A., 2003: Heat storage within the Earth system. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 331-335. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-247.pdf
More generally, in terms of true climate sensitivity, more metrics are needed as we discussed in the 2005 NRC report. The Executive summary includes the text [http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11175&page=4]
“Despite all these advantages, the traditional global mean TOA radiative forcing concept has some important limitations, which have come increasingly to light over the past decade. The concept is inadequate for some forcing agents, such as absorbing aerosols and land-use changes, that may have regional climate impacts much greater than would be predicted from TOA radiative forcing. Also, it diagnoses only one measure of climate change “global mean surface temperature response” while offering little information on regional climate change or precipitation. These limitations can be addressed by expanding the radiative forcing concept and through the introduction of additional forcing metrics. In particular, the concept needs to be extended to account for (1) the vertical structure of radiative forcing, (2) regional variability in radiative forcing, and (3) nonradiative forcing. A new metric to account for the vertical structure of radiative forcing is recommended below. Understanding of regional and nonradiative forcings is too premature to recommend specific metrics at this time. Instead, the committee identifies specific research needs to improve quantification and understanding of these forcings.”
It is, therefore, time to move beyond the use of the global annual average surface temperature trend as the metric to define “climate sensitivity”.
Differing views
There are clearly differing views on this subject.
John Christy does not support the metric. He points out that the surface temperature is affected by numerous things other than greenhouse forcing, and then gives two metrics which he prefers. The first is the change in joules in the system, with particular emphasis on the oceans. The second is bulk atmospheric temperature.
Patrick Michaels supports using the metric. He points out that the metric is important because it addresses the area where people live. However, he emphasizes that the surface temperature must be taken in concert with measurements such as ocean temperature at depth, and tropospheric and stratospheric temperatures. Without these other measurements, it would be difficult to assess the impact of GHGs on surface temperature.
Gavin Schmidt supports the metric unreservedly. He and Trenberth rightly point out that climate sensitivity is defined by global average surface temperature anomaly. Of course, the point of my question is challenging whether or not this is the best definition. Gavin seems to think so, and points out that the metric is “commonly-understood and widely-used”. He states that other metrics such as rainfall patterns and sea ice amount track very well with surface air temperature.
Trenberth is very brief, but states that global average surface temperature anomaly is not necessarily the best metric to use for climate change. He considers that global sea level is a better metric because it cuts down on weather related noise. However, he also points out that global average surface temperature anomaly is useful because it can be applied to the past more reliably. He also states that all variables taken together make a sound case.
Pielke Sr. is adamantly opposed to using this metric. We’ve already discussed his reasons. He also proposes a different metric for assessing climate sensitivity, “A more appropriate metric to assess the sensitivity of the climate system heat content to forcing is the response in Joules of the oceans”. He supports these claims with several of his own papers as well as a NRC report.
Conclusion
Pielke and Christy want to stop assessing climate sensitivity by using global average surface temperature anomaly, and both recommend using a change of joules (particularly in the ocean) as a better metric.
Michaels and Trenberth support the metric while emphasizing that other metrics must also be taken into account. Schmidt does not mention any drawbacks and emphasizes that the metric is already widely used and it works well with other metrics.
It seems to me the main problem here isn’t the metric itself, but the emphasis placed on it. I don’t believe that Pielke or Christy believe the metric has no value at all, only that it is a poor choice to use as the main metric when discussing CO2′s impact on climate. In Pielke’s case, the emphasis on CO2 itself is a problem, as he believes that other human impacts are far more important.
Climate science so frequently focuses on CO2 and temperature that it seems natural climate sensitivity would be measured by global average surface temperature anomaly. A shift away from this metric seems unlikely. However, if it can be shown in the future that a change in joules in the ocean directly contradicts other metrics then I’m sure this discussion will come up again. Pielke’s paper mentions an apparent contradiction found by Joshua Willis of JPL, although the measurements are only taken over a four year period. Only time will tell which metric is most valuable.
Jeremy says:
April 26, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Correct. With the baseline in the graph above established at zero at the inception of the industrialization revolution, any concentration of CO2 less than that would indeed cause “cooling”.
The answer is sticking out like a sore thumb: a combination/index of sea surface temperature + 600mb TLT temperatures combines the physical measureent with the supossed gas CO2 effect if any. Unfortunately we only have 30 years data, and that per se is not showing anything anomalous. Excuse the Upmanship.
I think the best metric would be ocean heat content because the energy retaining capability of the oceans is so vast.
Furthermore my description of the climate system relies on solar induced variations in energy input to the oceans as the primary driver of subsequent variations in the climate system with the oceans simply operating to ration the rate of release of that energy to the air and thereby modulating the solar effect.
At its simplest the system works as follows:
Where the consensus went wrong was firstly in attributing the observed climate effects to CO2 and secondly in failing to realise that the variations in ozone quantities in the atmosphere at different levels were solar induced and nothing to do with human activity (or at least a miniscule proportion due to human activity).
Furthermore it is really nothing to do with the properties of greenhouse gases per se.
The consensus view is that GHGs simply retain more energy and so warm the planet. It doesn’t work like that at all. It was proposed that an active sun warmed all the layers of the atmosphere together and that a quiet sun cooled them all together but that is not what we have seen.
In reality solar changes from above and oceanic changes from below change the surface pressure distribution to alter cloudiness and albedo so as to alter energy input to the oceans and it is that which changes the system energy content.
So as per my Hot Water Bottle Effect the role of the oceans as an energy retaining component of the system vastly outweighs the so called greenhouse effect in the air. Furthermore the CO2 portion of the total GHG effect in the air is tiny and the human portion even tinier.
Also the system response is reversed from that of the consensus view. That says that more GHGs warm the atmosphere. However what actually happens is that a more active sun COOLS the stratosphere and mesosphere by reducing GHGs (principally ozone) in the mesosphere above 45km (as per Joanna Haigh’s comments) so as to cool the stratosphere too despite MORE ozone in the stratosphere (from more UV) thereby drawing the jets poleward and allowing more solar energy into the oceans.
The active sun therefore allows a faster energy loss to space from the atmosphere (by destroying more ozone above 45km) but in doing so allows more solar energy into the oceans (by shifting the jets poleward) than the extra radiative energy lost to space.
So it really is nothing like the consensus view as to how GHGs work on the system energy budget and the surface temperature metric is of little use in ascertaining current system energy content or even the current trend in such energy content.
Agree with RPielke a temperature-humidity index (THI) should be included in the equation possibly derived from sea temps (SST) + LTL (lowest troposphere possible) temps. It might be SST/LTL X 100/H or something similar leave to experts. My 10 cents worth.
It appears very similar to what happens in the medical field, some merely focus on the symptoms whilst others dig deeper to determine the underlying causes.
Here’s what the IPCC says about ‘climate sensitivity’:
8.6.1
“Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration…”
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch8s8-6.html
So… the IPCC considers climate sensitivity to be a metric in itself. Gavin didn’t mention CO2 but the IPCC does. Most other definitions of climate sensitivity will include CO2 in the definition, and the implication is clear – it is the response of global temperature to a doubling in CO2 concentration.
Lets look at that in more detail:
Since the ‘baseline level’ of 280 ppmv in 1850, CO2 has increased by about 40%. Other radiative GHGs have increased even more. At the same time, but not necessarily dependant upon, the global temperature (as far as it can be judged) has increased by about 0.8 deg C.
The climate sensitivity, as ASSUMED by Gavin and the IPCC, is currently running at 2 deg C. However, and this is a big however, this figure ASSUMES that all the warming since 1850 has been caused by radiative forcing. As no-one can verify that assumption, we are left with the probability that an unknown portion of the warming MAY have been caused by radiative forcing, so the actual climate sensitivity has to be LESS than 2 deg C. It could be anything from 0.1 C to 1.9 C. Unfortunately, there is no proof that the increase in CO2 has made any quantifiable difference in the real planet’s global temperature. As the next doubling has to have a lower ‘climate sensitivity’ (due to the log effect), I have to ask “What the **** is the problem?”
The discussion has no meaning. Inventing a term based on an assumption and then arguing how valid the term is an exercise in futility.
Let’s see, the measurements are inadequate at best and probably garbage or have had many questionable adjustments made to them and/or are over too short a time period and the error bands are larger than the signal we’re looking for.
I think the whole field of “climate science” can best be summed up as “never has so much been made out of so little, by dint of vast expense and effort”.
Enough already!
Humans are the only creatures known to care about life forms and places far from them, such as the arctic or the ocean depths. We do care.
But we still care 100 times more about those things that relate more directly to our own survival. The difference in fisheries will mean much less than terrestrial differences. That is why the current definition relates to surface temperatures and that is why it will remain so.
It might be easier to get a precision metric of ocean heat in joules, and that item will be measured. But the metric both scientists and laymen will pay the most attention to will remain surface temperatures, with emphasis on temperatures in inhabited land areas.
Well, Hot Damn!
Absolutely agree with you Stephen Wilde; ocean heat content is THE definative indicator of planetary “warming”
Very, very interesting.
Agnostics prefer not rely on such a variable metric as ‘average’ ‘global’ ‘temperature’ (all words that could be misinterpreted or mis-measured are quoted – ooops, that’s all of them!). Believers seem to want to use it, and want to disregard others.
I particularly like Gavin’s ‘it is the definition because it is the definition’ blinkered response. That is very telling. To me, it really says: “This says what we want it to say, so this is the one we have to use”.
Sea levels, though? Really? Is there any possible signal that could be more easily swamped by daily noise than sea levels? It varies by tide, currents and air pressure, and none of the effects of these can be fully determined! Perhaps because it is such a small metric, and needs so much ‘adjusting’? It is heading down fast now, however, so maybe he would change his mind soon.
I have to agree that sea temperature is the only solid and defensible metric. That is where most of the ‘energy’ in the system is, and that is what we want to measure, is it not? The rest is just natural variable and noise, surely?
At the very end……………….. What difference does it make???
The planet will do fine either way.
rpielke April 26, 2011 at 2:47 pm
Joules is a unit of energy. Just being picky, but words mean things.
OK OK Joule is a unit of energy. Joules are several units of energy. Bad grammar; bad boy; Mea Culpa!
Given the variety of measurement errors affecting surface temperature measurements… which exceed the so-called sensitivity range in many instances… and given the regional distribution of both heating and cooling patterns, it would seem that climate changes might better be monitored by various proxies monitored in strictly rural/wilderness areas.
Climate is not only temperature, but precipitation, number of sunny days, and a variety of other influences on life forms. So, once you eliminate the effects of pollution and artificial sources of heat and drought, you can then examine the “natural” phenomena affecting the “biosphere.”
But we seem to like simple, easily understood, wrong answers to the complex, insightful analyses of the dynamics of our environment. Dr. Pielke, Sr. pushes in the direction of this complexity while alarmists push in the direction of simplicity. And once you begin to grasp the quantitative aspect of this complexity, you can begin to answer the question of whether or not the various changes are beneficial or detrimental toward supporting more or less life on earth. Hint: would longer growing seasons above 45 degrees latitude be beneficial or harmful to most life forms in that zone?
Trenberth above claims sea levels are the best climate sensitivity measure. He said to me in an email correspondence:
Trenberth: The rates (of sea level rise) have not been steady and picked up markedly in the mid 20th century and even more since 1990 or so. CO2 has been increasing since 1750 although mainly since 1850.
One wonders where he gets his data ?
“”””” Arfur Bryant says:
April 26, 2011 at 3:40 pm
Here’s what the IPCC says about ‘climate sensitivity’:
8.6.1
“Climate sensitivity is a metric used to characterise the response of the global climate system to a given forcing. It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration…” “””””
You see the varmints can’t even get it straight among themselves; or izzat amongst themselves !
Gavin; excuse me; that’s Dr Schmidt says it is the “”””” “Climate sensitivity” is *defined* as being the equilibrium response of the global mean surface temperature to a change in radiative forcing while holding a number of things constant “””””
And the IPCC says it is: “”””” It is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration…” “””””
So which the hell is it that drives the “Global Mean Surface Temperature” Is it a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 abundance, or is it a change in “Radiative Forcing”.
One of those would seem to be in “PPM CO2 ratio”, and the other would seem to be in “Watts per square metre.”; and either one would seem to require that the Global Mean Temperature come to some sort of equilibrium; which it never has, and never does.
I always thought that it was the late Dr Stephen Schneider who invented “Climate Sensitivity”, and defined it as the increase in Global mean Surface Temperature for a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 molecular abundance; thereby enshrining forever the myth that somehow the Temperature is a logarithmic Function of the CO2 abundance; which it clearly isn’t. Going from 1 PPM of CO2 , to 2 PPM of CO2 is surely not going to have the same result as going from 280 PPM to 560 PPM; which a logarithmic relationship would demand; or is it only the current doubling of CO2 from its millions of years history of being 280 PPM to its soon to be value of 560 PPM.
Yes Climatism surely is an exact science; so is bar room darts.
It’s almost meaningless, and is actually around 0.5.
😉
A report was just published that talks about the POTENTIAL effects of higher temperatures from climate change and how that might effect rainfall, snowfall and runoff- Interior Releases Report Highlighting Impacts of Climate Change to Western Water Resources http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/Interior-Releases-Report-Highlighting-Impacts-of-Climate-Change-to-Western-Water-Resources.cfm and noted here as well http://www.scpr.org/news/2011/04/25/report-climate-change-worsens-western-water-woes/?
I personally find the “global annual average surface temperature anomaly” to be a fairly useless metric when comes down to making policy decision on what I (or the policy makers out here in CA) should be focusing on. Local metrics are needed.
For how long have you been interested in climate issues, Mr Watts? Some years, maybe? How, then, are you still unable to distinguish between a transient response and an equilibrium response? The graph you post is meaningless.
I think there are three possibilities here:
1. You can’t understand the basics of climate science
2. You could understand, but you have a closed mind and refuse to understand.
3. You do understand, but you’re deliberately trying to mislead others.
Which is it?
Temperature is MOST DEFINITIVELY NOT A MEASURE OF ENERGY!!!!!!
Temperature is a measure of the rate at which molecules are vibrating. Temperature is the RESULT of the amount of energy absorbed by a volume of material AND the thermal capacity of said material.
I suggest a simple experiment; place a 1 inch sphere of copper (or 25 mm for those outside of the USA) in a pot of boiling water (212 F/100 C). Also place a sphere of polystyrene (same size with whichever units you prefer) in the same pot of boiling water. Wait 30 minutes or so for the cubes to reach “equilibrium” with the boiling water. Now, remove both with a set of tongs and firmly hold one in your right hand and one in your left hand. Please report back which hand has a nasty burn ?
Conclusions;
TEMPERATURE DOES NOT EQUAL ENERGY; it depends on the thermal capacity of the materials involved………………………..
THE SPEED OF HEAT TRAVELLING THROUGH A SYSTEM IS CRITICAL; if you leave a metal pipe wrench in your yard in August (sunny day in the Northern Hemisphere) and pick it up after lunch the chances are you will wince and drop it. If you leave a plastic pool toy next to it and pick it up at the same time you will probably not wince. WHY ? the metal has a higher thermal capacity AND a higher speed of heat (aka thermal diffusivity). So the metal (which is at about the same temperature as the plastic) has absorbed much more energy and can transfer it to your skin much faster than the plastic can.
As long as the climate scientists insist that they can calculate “net energy gains” and use temperature as their means for ”observing” these gains they are just travelling further down their own little rabbit hole.
Those of us in the engineering field that have prepared proper energy budgets (yes, they do exist for Earth orbiting satellites among other applications) use the detection of “energy gain” as a RED FLAG telling us that our calculations are WRONG AND CANNOT REPRESENT REALITY.
If you doubt this, I suggest you do an online patent search on the following terms;
“voltage amplifier” (a device that produces “net voltage gain”)
Or
“current amplifier” (etc….)
Or
“torque amplifier”, or “power amplifier”, “signal amplifier”, “pressure amplifier”, or just “amplifier”.
NOW SEARCH ON “ENERGY AMPLIFIER”………………
So the “Net Energy Gain” calculated by the climate scientists has yet to be discovered by the engineers and I bet after 30 years of this AGW BS we would have figured out how to make BILLIONS out of it……….
The only useful (but still NOISY) signal that tells us anything about the energy content of the Earth is the temperature of the oceans (which have the largest thermal capacity and a mostly constant thermal capacity over the temps of interest i.e. below freezing to 100F or so).
Cheers, Kevin.
It is ironic that Gavin Schmidt calls the question “ill-posed,” while not apparently realizing that the climate “models” (which attempt to render a numerical mathematical “solution” to adhoc collections of coupled, non-linear, partial differential equations) are themselves “ill-posed.”
And someday, we may even find out what equations are really being “solved” by Model E…
Dr. Pielke:
Thanks for responding. I read on your blog a long time ago how you believe joule content is the key measure and it made a whole lot of sense to me. (FYI; Your blog was one of the first blogs I ever read when I started looking closer at this whole AGW thing)
I also understand what a joule is. (it hasn’t been that long since I graduated from mech eng!!) I just don’t know if any to measure joules other than using a temperature proxy.
Is there another way?
Thanks in advance.
Mike Hodges
Now to make sense of my last sentence:
I just don’t know OF any way to measure joules other than using a temperature proxy.
Cheers
If you assume the NH and SH hold their water stable as ice over a reasonable period of time and assume precipitation neither adds nor subtracts from the equation then Trenberth’s suggestion of using a long term, easily understood metric like sea level as a proxy for heat gained /heat lost, on a global basis, may make sense.