Jo Nova writes:
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.
Visit Steven Goddard’s blog to read the full news story.
Their work fits in reasonably well with the Syun Akasofu graph posted here for the world to see:
Jo Nova writes:
Prediction: Warming trend until year 2000, then very cold.
Visit Steven Goddard’s blog to read the full news story.
Their work fits in reasonably well with the Syun Akasofu graph posted here for the world to see:
Richard said: “The GHE occurs in the atmosphere to warm the air. So, “does thermal inertia of the oceans and ice sheets” mean
(a) the air warmed by the GHE gets further warmed by the “the oceans and ice sheets “?
or
(b) “the oceans and ice sheets” get warmed by the air warmed by the GHE?”
I thought the GHE worked primarily be re-radiation, whereby the downward portion of it heats the land and oceans.
Is that not correct?
@JPeden
The CO2=CAGW hypothesis CAN be falsified, just not as easily as you might like to think. A couple of cold years won’t do it, but enough of them will. Do you not think climate scientists have thought about it? (No need to answer that, I know what you will say)
A quick Google turned up this interesting discussion between Roger Pielke Jr. and someone called lucia:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/what-weather-would-falsify-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/
It’s rather long, but it appears to discuss a proper statistical analysis of what would constitute a falsification of AGW. Quite an interesting read. THAT is what I call being a real skeptic!
BTW, I know nothing about the blog it appears on, though I suspect many here will. I cannot verify what they are saying, but it at least looks like they are talking about it in the right terms.
John B says:
June 2, 2011 at 11:49 am
I thought the GHE worked primarily be re-radiation, whereby the downward portion of it heats the land and oceans.
Is that not correct?
No. Downwelling longwave can’t penetrate the ocean surface by more than its own wavelength. The GHE works by raising the altitude at which radiation to space occurs.
This might help: http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/what-caused-global-warming-in-the-late-c20th/
RE: coturnix19 says:
June 1, 2011 at 8:32 am
Something has certainly been happening in the Humid Subtropical climate zones during recent years. Those zones seem to fly in the face of what is going on in many other climate zones. We see the same thing here in the US. A majority of the US population lives in or just poleward of that zone. Due to that, our media and popular culture imagine “global warming” to have set in but in reality it is an effect limited to a single climate zone.
John B says:
June 2, 2011 at 12:17 pm
The CO2=CAGW hypothesis CAN be falsified, just not as easily as you might like to think. A couple of cold years won’t do it, but enough of them will. Do you not think climate scientists have thought about it?
Yes, the noble ipcc Climate Scientists have indeed thought about the problem of “falsification”, John, as it relates to their statements/theory/hypotheses, and that’s exactly why they specifically avoid stating what would falsify their theory, easily or not! In other words, why bother to start doing real science, when you intentionally haven’t done any of it yet, for the exact purpose of escaping such inconvenient problems as “falsification” of your claims?
Specifically not doing real science allows ipcc Climate Scientists to keep their own CO2=CAGW Propaganda Operation’s Conspiracy Theory going in spite of its confrontations with the real world, where their statements simply don’t apply as to what is objectively the case, i.e., they are linguistically and scientificallly meaningless.
For god’s sake and the children’s, snap out of it, John! You are enabling – not quite Hansen’s “destruction of creation” – but at least the propagandistic perpetration of crimes against Humanity!
Stephen Wilde says:
June 2, 2011 at 2:00 am
You may actually be getting into a mechanism that “turns on and off” the glacials and interglacials. Always likening things to electronics as I am wont to do, I envisage a MOSFET. There are “gates” that turn on and off much greater effects than the gate signal itself. “Something” flips the switch when we move from an interglacial to a glacial and vice versa.
John B says:
Well said. Trying to look for cycles in phenonomon known to be non-cyclic would be an impossible task. Good luck to those that try – it’s human to try to find patterns in things by quite frustrating in this case.
Richard S Courtney says:
Again you are misusing the term “committed warming”. See previous post for the proper definition.
How do you know?
Can you please cite this evidence?
I googled, found Trenberth’s paper and quoted most of the Introduction.
Thermal inertia means that because the ocean has a lot of mass, it take a long time to warm up.
A good analogy is that the ocean is a big pot of water on a small gas fired stove. The stove is set to 280, and the water is at, say for example sake 10 degrees and at equilibrium state, meaning the heat going in currently matches the heat going out.
Now turn the stove from 280 to 390. The water will eventually rise from 10 degrees and settle at a new equilibrium state of 12 degrees (for example sake), but it doesn’t do that instantaneously. It takes time.
So too the ocean takes time to warm up to a new forcing, even if we stop emitting CO2, the current level will stay there for many years (akin to keeping the stove at 390).
Whilst the CO2 remains, the ocean will continue to warm until the new thermal equilibrium is reached. That is “committed warming”.
The answer is “(b) “the oceans and ice sheets” get warmed by the air warmed by the GHE”
In addition to that, the ocean is obviously not all exactly the same temperature. There are spots both colder and warmer than average. As you point out there may be additional heat that has been transferred deeper into the ocean where little monitoring is performed. This is warming already performed.
Thanks Tallbloke.
On the link to your own blogsite, you say “Downwelling longwave radiation from greenhouse gases (mostly water vapour, plus co2) can’t penetrate the ocean surface beyond it’s own wavelength. This is well known physics. But the assumption has been that the warming of the surface by this longwave ‘back radiation’ is ‘mixed down’ into the ocean. This is incorrect. ”
So, it looks like I’m just parroting the “incorrect” assumption as per “well known physics”, but you prove it wrong. So it looks like its not only climate scince that’s BS, but some of physics too. Wow! I had no idea that so much of science was is such a state.
You then go on to say, “However, I’ve done the calcs … This isn’t going to make a big enough difference to account for the amount that the ocean warmed from 1980 to 2003.” And then conclude “Late C20th Global warming was caused predominantly by the Sun, not human emitted co2”. So, it was the Sun. Not CO2, but also not cosmic rays, volcanoes, or anything else.
And you make a testable prediction, “The current small recovery in temperature following La Nina will be short lived, and global surface temperature will fall again, dropping to below January 2008 levels sometime in the next 6-10 months. …” but, “If the prediction fails, it isn’t a fatal blow to my hypothesis … ” Now I’m pretty sure I’ve heard AGW being accused of that sort of thing, but I guess it depends who is making the claim.
What do the rest of you think about Tallbloke’s alternate hypothesis?
Richard S Courtney says:
June 2, 2011 at 5:55 am
Tallbloke:
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/20/working-out-where-the-energy-goes-part-2-peter-berenyi/
Thankyou for that link. It is an excellent summary of the ‘ocean heat’ issue that I had not seen before.
As you say;
“No ‘missing heat’, just a duff theory.”
Richard, you are very welcome. Happy to help. I’m convinced Peter Berenyi has nailed it. Please post the link around elsewhere.
Cheers
Rog
@JPeden,
Roger Pielke jr. would appear not to agree with you. He seems to think that IPCC claims are falsifiable. He engages in a conversation with “lucia” about how much data, showing how much cooling (or non-warming) would be required to do that. This is real skepticism, not just “make stuff up and call people names”.
John
John B says:
June 2, 2011 at 4:47 pm
Roger Pielke jr. would appear not to agree with you. He seems to think that IPCC claims are falsifiable.
Of course CO2=CAGW is falsifiable! I’m instead saying that its proponents simply will not let it be falsifiable or falsified in practice, which makes the ipcc Climate Scientists’ “theory” not a scientific theory. It’s Dogma, at best, and critical to the Propaganda Op. which CO2=CAGW Climate Science is, because it appears to be a real scientific theory.
Just because an apparent statement has the form of a factual statement, this does not mean that its author treats the statement as though it is factual. Climate Science is not real science. If it had the same stated or implied words put together as hypotheses which attend to, roughly, “CO2=CAGW”, and acted like real science, including allowing its stated hypotheses to be seriously challenged and falsified, it would be real science, but it doesn’t.
tallbloke says:
Can you explain why you think the penetrated longwave radiation doesn’t reduce the amount of cooling from the ocean to the atmosphere? I would have thought the radiation loss to the surface of the ocean depends upon the temperature of the two bodies; that the heat flow is dependant upon the temperature of the surface and the temperature of the molecules below the surface.
Not really, there is a leap from “This is incorrect.” to “I’ve done the calcs” and no real explanation for why. I am still new to this so please bear with me, as I see it, if you’re getting more longwave radiation penetrating the surface of the ocean, then it really doesn’t matter how high/low the CO2 is, additional energy is getting in.
I am missing your understanding of how a thicker (higher) blanket of CO2 cannot produce greater warmth in the ocean.
Are you able to provide an explanation of this and your numbers that you calculated.
Thanks,
Walter.
This item was fun. I found the exact same article on my local paper for the same date January 1 1979.
JPeden said: “Of course CO2=CAGW is falsifiable! I’m instead saying that its proponents simply will not let it be falsifiable or falsified in practice, which makes the ipcc Climate Scientists’ “theory” not a scientific theory. It’s Dogma, at best, and critical to the Propaganda Op. which CO2=CAGW Climate Science is, because it appears to be a real scientific theory.”
So falsify it! But please don’t try and argue that simply saying “oh no it doesn’t” or pointing at a picture counts as falsification. Pielke and Lucia are clearly aware of this. So is Lindzen, which is why he quoted a research paper when he said “Recent work (Tsonis et al, 2007), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.” (linked by Smokey on another thread) That would be falsification, if it held up to scrutiny. The problem for Lindzen was that the Tsonis paper does not support that claim. It actually concludes:
“The standard explanation for the post 1970s warming is that the radiative effect of greenhouse gases overcame shortwave reflection effects due to aerosols [Mann and Emanuel, 2006]. However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests an alternative hypothesis, namely that the climate shifted after the 1970s event to a different state of a warmer climate, which may be superimposed on an anthropogenic warming trend.”
You can call Tsonis et al “clowns”, as Smokey did on another thread, but that doesn’t help Lindzen.
AGW is falsifiable, whether the IPCC admit it or not. Just go do it. The guy that proves we don’t need to reduce carbon emissions will be a dead cert for a Nobel prize!
John B,
Thanx for all your novice comments. They help to keep traffic high here at the internet’s “Best Science” site. But really, when you post nonsense like: “However, comparison of the 2035 event in the 21st century simulation and the 1910s event in the observations with this event, suggests…”, you are appealing to the false authority of a computer modeler. Speculating about a simulation for 2035 is just more computer model nonsense. But I guess when models are all you’ve got, that’s the hand you’re forced to play. Meanwhile, the disconnect between CO2 and temperature continues to get wider, to the consternation of Algore’s sycophants.
You have admitted before that you are far from up to speed. If Prof Lindzen [or Tsonis] says he made a mistake, then I’ll agree with you. But they haven’t, and you’re hanging onto a minor quibble like a drowning man clings to a popsicle stick. After 600,000+ reader comments, you’re the only one who cares. Better get another sock puppet to support you on that issue. And face the fact that the planet itself is falsifying the failed CO2 conjecture, and that other temperature correlations do a much better job than CO2.
Your CO2=CAGW conjecture has been falsified [whether you accept it or not] by Planet Earth – the ultimate authority. So, do we believe what the planet is saying? Or do we accept the anti-science fixation of evidence-free lunatic believers in their debunked runaway global warming fantasy? Me, I go with planet earth.
Tallbloke:
Please try not to be dragged in to a discussion of the GHE with John B.
Some people who know and/or understand little contribute to discussion with a view to learning, but the likes of John B contribute with a clear intent to obfuscate any debate.
I made the error of attempting rational debate with him/her/them on another thread. John B ‘homes in’ on a side-issue then ignores all evidence and logic but makes assertions and demands that prevent rational debate of the main point of a thread.
Richard
Smokey, you said, “you are appealing to the false authority of a computer modeler”. But it wasn’t ,b>me appealing to that authority, false or otherwise, it was Lindzen. And you are appealing to Lindzen’s authority. Irony piled upon irony.
Then you said, “Or do we accept the anti-science fixation of evidence-free lunatic believers in their debunked runaway global warming fantasy?” All you have to do is substantiate that claim and you’ve won. You’ll save the world from the costs of reducing carbon emissions and bag yourself a Nobel prize along the way. That is what a true skeptic would be trying to do.
I’m off on my holidays. See you in a week or so.
John
Richard S Courtney says:
“John B ‘homes in’ on a side-issue then ignores all evidence and logic but makes assertions and demands that prevent rational debate of the main point of a thread.”
Exactly right.
Appealing to a legitimate authority is not a false argument. John B should look it up. Prof Lindzen, whom he hates and fears, is the world’s preeminent climate authority. Dr Lindzen heads the atmospheric sciences department at MIT – arguably the finest engineering school on the planet.
If John B had any evidence of global damage due to CO2, he would have posted it by now. He tried once, but that pathetic attempt was easily debunked, since computer models are not evidence. So now he tries to re-frame the debate onto peripheral quibbles. He needs to admit that he’s decisively lost the CO2=CAGW argument [if not… where is the global damage?], so he’s finally reduced to nit-picking. Jon B reeks of desperation, but he keeps digging his hole deeper. Typical for the alarmist crowd, which wouldn’t understand the scientific method or skepticism if it bit ’em on the butt.
Not only is that LOL funny, but it is about the best description I have ever heard for the increasingly common tactic of inane nitpicking by the climate cult groupies.
Clearly they are like turds circling the drain.
Walter:
I write to state that I am refusing further discussion with you and to explain that decision.
I have concluded that your intent is deliberate deflection of debate onto trivia as a method to prevent rational debate of the subject of the thread which – I remind – in this case is climate cycles.
A clear example of why I have reached this conclusion is provided by your most recent post (at June 2, 2011 at 4:21 pm) to me.
It quotes me saying;
“The energy is supposed to be “going” into the oceans to induce “committed warming”.
…
But it is not in the oceans ..”
Then asks me:
“How do you know?”
But I had recently answered that at June 1, 2011 at 10:53 am where I wrote:
“So, my post explained that the “committed warming” is heat that has gone into the oceans but seems to have vanished (my post cited one of several pieces of evidence that it has vanished, but others include ocean cooling and reduction to ocean expansion). ”
Clearly, your intention is to argue in cycles as a method to inhibit discussion of climate cycles.
Richard
Walter says:
June 2, 2011 at 9:03 pm
tallbloke says:
No. Downwelling longwave can’t penetrate the ocean surface by more than its own wavelength. The GHE works by raising the altitude at which radiation to space occurs.
Can you explain why you think the penetrated longwave radiation doesn’t reduce the amount of cooling from the ocean to the atmosphere? I would have thought the radiation loss to the surface of the ocean depends upon the temperature of the two bodies; that the heat flow is dependant upon the temperature of the surface and the temperature of the molecules below the surface.
Keeping it simple, all the longwave the ocean radiates goes into the atmosphere, whereas a significant proportion of the downwelling longwave is reflected straight back into the atmosphere (incident angle). Also, because the longwave can’t penetrate more than it’s own wavelength into the ocean, a relatively large amount of energy is being concentrated into a very thin layer. This will cause prompt evaporation of some molecules of water, which lowers the temperature of the surface through the absorption of energy from surrounding molecules and the longwave radiation as the evaporating molecules must acquire the latent heat of evaporation. More energy leaves the ocean in convection and evaporation than by radiation.
Rather than getting hung up on impossible to resolve arguments about ‘skin temperature’ and the ease or difficulty with which subsurface oceanic energy gets out, it is wiser to simply consider the flux across the boundary at short distances above and below the surface. That flux is around 65W/m^2 from ocean to air.
Although considered in vacuuo the radiative balance between ocean and atmosphere seems simple, it isn’t, because evaporation and convection effects are intermingled with the radiative effects. I have no problem accepting that a thickening of the atmosphere which entails an increase in the altitude at which it radiates to space will cause the ocean to cool more slowly. My contention is that this effect is nowhere near sufficient to explain the increase in ocean heat content in the late C20th, partly because the effect of increased back radiation on the ocean surface isn’t as big as the current wisdom thinks it is.
Then there are the other issues affecting the height at which radiation to space takes place at. The Sun going quiet seems to have caused the shrinking of the thermosphere by 30%. What effect does that have on the TOA balance?
Diminishing solar activity levels correlate with diminishing upper atmosphere specific humidity. What effect does that have? A bigger opposite sign effect than an increase in the atmospheric concentration of co2 from ~o.o28% to 0.039% I’ll should think, given the billions of tons of water in the atmosphere.
Over to you.
Bob B says: June 1, 2011 at 6-15 am.
I am looking for some basic calculations re reduction of global surface temperature.
Hi Bob,
A paper “Surface reflectance and conversion efficiency dependence of technologies for mitigating global warming” http://www.solartran.com.au/RENE3976.pdf
is a bit technical but has some simple diagrams which may be useful.
Tallbloke:
We seem to have been side-tracked onto discussion of sea surface energy interactions.
Sadly, I have failed to resist the temptation to join in the side-track because I spent the three years (i.e. 2000 to 2003) living on a boat while attempting to quantify energy interactions at sea surface.
Nobody knows what really happens in a quantifiable fashion.
My study was confounded by an effect of humidity that it discovered. This effect was as follows.
Ripples are structurally different from waves and exist on water surface including the surface of waves. They travel across water surface, and they have cross-section approximating a sine wave so they have peaks and troughs. I discovered that a cylinder of air (which I called a ‘tube’) rolls along in each trough. This ‘tube’ is in intimate contact with the water surface so becomes moisture saturated. This saturation affects evaporation from water surface into each ‘tube’ that fills each trough of each ripple. And the troughs total nearly half of ocean surface. Thus, the ‘tubes’ affect energy loss by evaporation from about half of total ocean surface.
The effect of the ‘tubes’ is complex.
The degree of the tubes’ effect depends on the average lifetime of a ripple: if ripples are short-lived then the effect will be small but if they are long-lived the effect will be large (because the degree of their average saturation depends upon their average lifetime). But the average lifetime of ripples is not known and it varies with sea state.
Energy loss by evaporation is a major source of heat loss from ocean surface. My discovery of the ‘tubes’ prevented me quantifying the various heat exchange mechanisms at sea surface.
I provided a Report for the project’s sponsor and it includes a suite of different models I devised that could each be justified according to available data, but they gave such differing predictions of ‘sea surface energy interactions’ that the models were useless (choose your model and you could get an indication of almost anything you wanted to assert).
The work was a commercial contract and the Report has commercial confidentiality so I cannot cite it and my several requests to publish it in the public domain have been refused. I regret this because I have selfish reasons to want the work published in the public domain.
However, none of this alters your statements in your excellent post at June 3, 2011 at 4:14 am . Indeed, it emphasises your point that the issues are not simple.
And I apologise if this feeds the trolls who keep trying to side-track this thread.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
Sorry you seem to be mixed up. I checked, the only link in your post is http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch9s9-2-2.html and it says nothing about wether the heat in the oceans has “vanished”.
You were the one that strayed away from cycles and onto ocean heat. Since then you’ve been incorrect about the term “comitted warming”, Trenberths use of the word “Travesty” and about knowing whether or not the heat remains somewhere in the ocean.
I understand completely.