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:
Walter:
You say;
“I understand completely.”
Assuming that is correct, it gives me great pleasure to congatulate you on what seems to be a ‘first’ for you.
Richard
Walter,
I’m starting to figure out how Smokey and Richard work. They make bold claim “X”, and cite “Y” and “Z” as evidence. You point out that they are mistaken about “Z”, which calls into question their conclusion. They then say, “but I was talking about X, why are you nit-picking about a sideline?”
There has to be a name for this approach. Any suggestions?
Really must go now.
John
tallbloke says:
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to respond. I am genuinely interested, although sceptical of all ideas put forward in forums. 😉
I take it then you don’t accept this version of the Earth’s energy budget?
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html (half way down – Global Heat Flows)
Also, with regards to “significant proportion of the downwelling longwave is reflected”, I thought longwave radiation is only reflected by a few materials (such as Aluminium, Gold). Do you have more information on this?
OK, I’m a bit lost here (and yes it’s most likely my brain rather than your explanation) but if the flux is 65W/m^2 from ocean to air, then are you saying the ocean is always losing heat to the air? I would have thought the heat flux, assuming a equilibrium state, would be zero. If that were the case wouldn’t we be seeing thermal contraction rather than expansion?
Great! It’s nice to have some common ground. 😉
This is news to me, and as such the sceptic side of me comes out. Do you have information on this. Sorry to be asking so many questions, but it is nice to get answers. Like any scientist, if a theory is to stand, it must undergo scrutiny.
Sorry I have no idea. I can ask the tricky questions but you are better equipped to answer I think.
I’m guessing that depends on how great the humidity is affected. But hasn’t the solar activity diminished over the past 30 odd years whilst temps continue to climb?
John B says:
June 3, 2011 at 12:22 am
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!
Certainly by now, I don’t see any need to even assert it!
Btw, you really fell into that one, John, the predictability of CO2=CAGW Cultists and Propagandists being what it is and all…Did you notice that you simply provided another example which supported my hypothesis about CO2=CAGW “science”?
– By now, “We’re all Chinese!”….rational, wise, and underdeveloped!
John B:
“I’m starting to figure out how Smokey and Richard work. They make bold claim “X”, and cite “Y” and “Z” as evidence. You point out that they are mistaken about “Z”, which calls into question their conclusion. They then say, “but I was talking about X, why are you nit-picking about a sideline?”
There has to be a name for this approach. Any suggestions?”
I cannot give a name to what you assert is “how Smokey and Richard work” but there are several for your assertion. The following are a few.
Lie, falsehood, misrepresentation, defamation.
Richard
John B says:
June 3, 2011 at 12:22 am
The guy that proves we don’t need to reduce carbon emissions will be a dead cert for a Nobel prize!
Well, then chalk up another one [at least!] for Gore and ipcc Climate Science! Wow, after all of that gov’t funded “science”, etc., they’ve proven that even they can’t make a truly scientific case for CO2=CAGW, while also very generously stimulating the scrutiny and [negative] scientific feedback helping to show that “climate change” remains natural, as per usual, and that a confirming and skeptical Peer Review as actually construed by real, scientific method and principle, science works!
But they’ve likewise also managed to help quell the psycho-deranged, anti-evolutionary, Totalitarian drive for Post Normal Science where “perception is reality” and “might makes right”, so their additional efforts towards freeing the World from its anti-individual slavery – with its commensurate “equality” and “sustainability” – should also not go unrewarded!
Of course, if any doubt remains about the validity of ipcc Climate Science’s CO2=CAGW “theory” and “method”, my services are still available, and at a very reasonable price, to have scientists “prove” that the burning of fossil fuel to produce energy will necessarily eventuate in the closest thing to Heaven on Earth possible! Even for Polar Bears!
John B says:
Avoidalism? Ignoralism? Dummyspitalism? Desperatalism? Idunnoism?
It does make it difficult to sort out the true sceptics from those just wishing to confuse people.
Walter,
I’ve got a thicker skin than that. And it does appear that I’m confusing you. Here, let me help:
Scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the promoters of the repeatedly falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture who have the onus of showing – primarily through empirical evidence and accurate predictions – that their conjecture remains standing after all attempts to falsify it have failed.
But their conjecture is falsified because it can not make accurate predictions, and the real world is falsifying it.
When you don’t have the facts on your side, call names. Yeah, that’ll work.☺ Feel better now, Walter?
Smokey says:
Why not? If I made a statement saying that there is or isn’t heat somewhere, I’d expect people would want evidence to support my comment.
When Richard S Courtney states “But it is not in the ocean”, he should be prepared to show evidence to support that statement.
In this article we have a scientist making a prediction that it would get 1-2, or maybe 3-4 degrees cooler. It may well do if the IPCC science is wrong. So far, the data we have does not show anything near that kind of cooling.
I’m sorry Richard S Courtney has sore feelings, but to go off and sulk is pretty childish behaviour. When I get corrected, I have no problem admitting I was wrong. To do so means I get to learn something new.
Graphs without explanations does not make for good science but I’ll take a guess that you’re expecting CO2 levels to match temperature over a time period of 8 years. This seems to be a strawman argument because I can’t see any climate scientists, from the IPCC or otherwise, suggesting that there should be such a link over such a short time period.
The obvious problems with your analysis (that I can think of):
1. You’ve assumed all changes to surface temps are due to CO2.
2. You’ve assumed the radiative force from CO2 will immediately come into equilibrium.
3. You ignore known causes of surface temperature changes and hence you do not compensate for their effect.
Walter:
I am not sulking.
I have stated the evidence repeatedly. It is:
1.
The ‘committed heat’ has not cause the temperature rise the IPCC predicted that it must (i.e. the ‘committed heat’ has vanished).
2.
The oceans are cooling so the ‘commited heat’ is not in them (i.e. the ‘committed heat’ has vanished).
3.
Ocean expansion has reduced (i.e. the ‘committed heat’ has vanished).
You have not challenged any of this evience; indeed, it is irrefutable.
Instead, you keep refusing to face the evidence and you go round in circles while making false allegations.
I have done with you. That is NOT sulking. It is disdain.
Richard
Walter,
Since you’re fixated on 8 years, here is a chart that provides much closer corellation to temperature over a much longer time frame.
True belief is a funny thing, it makes you see things that just aren’t there, like a connection between rising CO2 and rising temperature. But as most of us here know, CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from 5 months to hundreds of thousands of years.
Further, the biosphere is currently starved of harmless, beneficial CO2. More CO2 is good. Much more CO2 is better.
Those are facts, which all true believers will reject because of their cognitive dissonance. But undecided folks reading this and clicking the links will see that the “carbon” scare is simply trumped-up pseudo-science. That’s the value of the “Best Science” site: both sides post their facts and opinions uncensored, and the thousands of daily readers then make up their minds. That’s why the silly runaway global warming fantasy is running into rough sledding. There’s no evidence for it. It was just a scare tactic all along.
Richard S Courtney says:
Writing a sentence is not the same as producing evidence. All you continue to do is say that you are right, without reference to any links to scientific evidence to support your statement.
Again you misuse this term. As mentioned this earlier when I linked to the IPCC’s explanation for the term.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/01/old-prediction-may-fit-the-present-pattern/#comment-672395
You may like making up your own definitions, but it would help further discussion if you could stick with the generally accepted one.
Now again you SAY the oceans are cooling, but you haven’t provided ANY evidence to support this.
The ocean would need to contract in order to support your claim that it has lost heat.
Perhaps I should adopt your logic. I AM A BILLIONAIRE!! Nope, didn’t work.
Please supply evidence in your next post.
Disdain, without evidence. 😉
Smokey says:
I said 8 years because that’s what you were showing in your graph. No fixation on short term cherry picked periods on my behalf. 😉
Great, but you’re still flogging a strawman argument. You still fail to account for all other forces, or understand that a direct relationship is not what climate scientists would expect.
Can you please support your claim with evidence? I’d be particularly interested in how more CO2 is better for the oceans and what “science” you have that dismisses the acidification effect.
Walter:
I offer you some kindly advice.
You should give up. An effective troll disrupts debate. This debate has ended so at this stage there is no point to your introduction of pseudoscientific nonsense such as the putative ocean ‘acidification’.
So, give up. You have lost every argument and impartial observers can see you lost them. You cannot retrieve this situation by trying to start another irrelevant argument.
Richard
Richard S Courtney says:
The debate ended? Well then it did so without you providing evidence to defend your claims.
As for ocean acidification, the “science” would disagree with you.
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&pq=punitive&xhr=t&q=ocean+acidification
Smokey’s claim that more CO2 is better is easily countered by looking at the effects it has on the ocean, without complicated discussions on how greenhouses gases work.
As for your calling me a Troll, that’s a laugh! Repeatedly I have wanted to engage further into the discussion and if they are off topic, it is only because tohers had led the discussion there.
Time and time again you fail to present evidence to support your argument whereas I have when I demonstrated how your use of the term “committed warming” and “Travesty” were incorrect.
So please, in your next post supply EVIDENCE to defend your previous claims rather than just repeating a claim of victory.
Walter says:
“Smokey’s claim that more CO2 is better is easily countered by looking at the effects it has on the ocean, without complicated discussions on how greenhouses gases work.”
I refer Walter to these articles, which thoroughly deconstruct the seawater pH scare:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/19/the-electric-oceanic-acid-test
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/10/ocean-acidification-chicken-of-the-sea-little-strikes-again
Walter also says [to RSC]: “So please, in your next post supply EVIDENCE to defend your previous claims…”
There is plenty of empirical evidence presented in those articles and in the following comments. More CO2 is better for the biosphere, including the oceans. Even quadrupling atmospheric CO2 would not significantly lower pH, due to the almost infinite buffering capacity from calcium compounds. The whole ocean pH scare is just more baseless alarmism, as those articles and comments show.
Walter wants evidence, he gets loads of evidence. But when we ask for evidence of global harm due to “carbon”… *crickets*
Walter says:
June 3, 2011 at 6:40 am
I take it then you don’t accept this version of the Earth’s energy budget?
http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/warming_clouds_albedo_feedback.html (half way down – Global Heat Flows)
The guy who constucted that cartoon (Kevin Tenberth) doesn’t accept it any more, so why should I? He knows that his ‘missing heat’ means it is wrong. Miskolczi and Zagoni say his atmospheric window is too small.
Also, with regards to “significant proportion of the downwelling longwave is reflected”, I thought longwave radiation is only reflected by a few materials (such as Aluminium, Gold). Do you have more information on this?
Reflectivity depends on emissivity (about 0.983 for water), trying to find out how much the angle of incidence affects reflection isn’t easy, because all the papers I can find discuss the downwelling longwave as ‘diffuse’ and seem to just assume that only the reflectivity due to emissivity needs to be accounted for. Incoming shortwave from the Sun certainly is affected by angle of incidence, so I’d like to know at what wavelength ‘it doesn’t matter’ any more.
OK, I’m a bit lost here (and yes it’s most likely my brain rather than your explanation) but if the flux is 65W/m^2 from ocean to air, then are you saying the ocean is always losing heat to the air? I would have thought the heat flux, assuming a equilibrium state, would be zero. If that were the case wouldn’t we be seeing thermal contraction rather than expansion?
We were discussing the longwave flux, not the overall heat flux. According to the Kiehl-Ternberth cartoon, the difference between downwelling and ocean emitted longwave is ~65W/m^2. There are measurement problems.
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.
This is news to me, and as such the sceptic side of me comes out. Do you have information on this. Sorry to be asking so many questions, but it is nice to get answers. Like any scientist, if a theory is to stand, it must undergo scrutiny.
I will get around to presenting my calcs on my blog. Part of the reason for the unrealistic splice in the OHC data between XBT and ARGO at 2003 is due to unrealistic numbers before 2003, which I think were calibrated to the theoretical co2 forcing and failed to account for extra insolation due to reduced tropical cloud cover.
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.
I’m guessing that depends on how great the humidity is affected. But hasn’t the solar activity diminished over the past 30 odd years whilst temps continue to climb?
Yes, but not as much as previously thought if Dr Leif Svalgaard is correct about the overcounting of sunspots during the Waldmeier era. I think he is correct, because I have supporting evidence for his contention from another dataset independent of his (different physical basis). Also, just because the peak amplitudes dropped doesn’t mean overall levels of solar activity dropped. The solar cycles in the late C20th had shorter than average minima between them, and the upramps and downramps of the cycles were very steep. The average sunspot number stayed much higher than the longterm average for several decades. Also, if my hypothesis is correct, the equilibrium value for the ocean was exceeded during the 1934-2005 period, so the oceans were accumulating solar heat even as the cycle amplitudes fell slightly.
Walter:
OK. To stop your false accusations that I have not provided “evidence”, I cite the following.
I said;
1.
The ‘committed heat’ has not cause the temperature rise the IPCC predicted that it must (i.e. the ‘committed heat’ has vanished).
I fully explained this with a reference, a quotation and a link above at June 1, 2011 at 8:43 am .
The explanation begins by saying;
“Section 10.7.1 titled ‘Climate Change Commitment to Year 2300 Based on AOGCMs’
in the Report from WG1 (i.e. the “science” Working Group) of the most recent IPCC Report (AR4) can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says:
“The multi-model average …”
Etc.
I said;
2.
The oceans are cooling so the ‘commited heat’ is not in them (i.e. the ‘committed heat’ has vanished).
At June 2, 2011 at 5:37 am Tallbloke provided a full explanation of the ARGO data. That explanation clearly shows the oceans are cooling in recent years and provides an explanation for the “adjustment” needed to make those direct measurements agree with earlier measurements .
I said I agreed with the contents of his link when I replied at June 2, 2011 at 5:55 am. That statement of agreement is my presenting the evidence for o’ocean cooling’ you say I have not.
I said;
3. “Ocean expansion has reduced (i.e. the ‘committed heat’ has vanished).”
You responded with the fatuous comment that ;
“The ocean would need to contract in order to support your claim that it has lost heat.”
Firstly, I made no such claim: I said the additional heat of “committed warming” is not in the oceans. Do you really think I am sufficiently stupid as to debate a ‘straw man’ presented by a troll? I assure you that I am not.
Anyway, the oceans have had a fall in sea level since 2004; see
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/global_change_analysis.html
I only make this post to overcome your ‘big lie’ technique of repeating a lie in hope that observers will believe it.
You have been given evidence but have ignored it and you have repeatedly claimed you did not have it.
Go away. You are a nuisance.
Richard
Richard,
How many more times do we need to explain it to you? “Committed warming” means warming that has yet to happen, due to already accumuluated CO2. Tenberth’s “missing heat” is an inablity to trace warming that is supposed to have already happened. Even if Trenberth’s heat really isn’t there, the two concepts are unrelated. This is explained in mainstream texts and has been linked to several times here. You need to clear up your misunderstanding, then we can discuss the issue of the admitted near flatlining of temperatures over the last few years.
John (Yes, me again. Just having a quick look from vacation)
John B:
I have repeatedly explained the matter above. The fact that you do not understand it is not my problem.
Your problems are:
1.
You need to explain why the “committed warming” has not resulted in the predicted temperature rises if – as you claim – ” “Committed warming” means warming that has yet to happen, due to already accumuluated CO2.”
I say that lack of warming shows the “committed warming” has vanished: it has.
And
2.
You need to explain how that “committed warming” has not gone into the oceans: it has not and Trenberth says this is “a travesty”.
Enjoy your holiday and stop posting nonsense which prevents others enjoyment of the present interglacial.
Richard
John B says:
June 5, 2011 at 7:46 am
Richard,
How many more times do we need to explain it to you? “Committed warming” means warming that has yet to happen, due to already accumuluated CO2. Tenberth’s “missing heat” is an inablity to trace warming that is supposed to have already happened. Even if Trenberth’s heat really isn’t there, the two concepts are unrelated.
They are related. They both depend on an unrealistic water vapour feedback which is unobserved, unphysical, and UNfulfilled.
Tallbloke:
Yes, of course you are right when you say of “Committed warming” and Tenberth’s “missing heat”;
“They are related. They both depend on an unrealistic water vapour feedback which is unobserved, unphysical, and UNfulfilled.”
But there is a more fundamental relationship.
The AGW hypothesis says increased atmospheric GHG concentration increases IR back radiation to the surface. The hypothesis asserts that this back radiation causes surface warming which has two effects; viz.
1.
The warmed surface warms the air
and
2.
The warmed ocean surface warms the oceans.
Point 1 is an almost instantaneous effect (the GH effect occurs at the speed of light). Hence, it cannot contribute to “committed warming” from one year to subsequent years.
I agree with you that Point 2 is probably wrong and is certainly overstated, but here I am considering the IPCC version of what they think is reality.
The ocean warming of Point 2 establishes a new thermal equilibrium between air and ocean. There is a lag (of several years) to obtain this equilibrium because net energy (from back radiation) is absorbed in the oceans until equilibrium is achieved. Upon achievement of the equilibrium then the air temperature is raised and, importantly, the air/and oceans obtain zero net energy exchange as a result of the increased atmospheric GHG concentration.
So, until equilibrium is achieved the oceans absorb more energy from the air and this is why there is “committed warming”. When equilibrium is achieved then the oceans continue to absorb more energy but they also emit more energy back to the air: in other words, “committed warming” is increase to energy from the oceans in response to previous IR back radiation to the surface.
Simplisticly, “committed warming” is heat of the IR back radiation to the surface that is stored in the ocean until it is later released to the air.
Trenberth’s “missing heat” equates to missing “committed warming” and, therefore,
it is not surprising that the “committed warming” has vanished when Trenberth’s “missing heat” exists: they are the same thing.
Richard
Richard,
excellent and clear analysis as always, thankyou. The issue has been discussed extensively on my blog, and this one will run and run. Stephen Wilde has a new post up there which posits physical reasons why the back radiation isn’t going to heat the oceans, all input welcome. I think it is an interesting argument he has put forward, and welcome expert opinion on it.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/06/05/stephen-wilde-the-setting-and-maintaining-of-earth%E2%80%99s-equilibrium-temperature/
If the air had been heating the ocean and getting the ocean to heat the air more, wouldn’t the rate of heat loss to space have been observably increasing? There agin, given the uncertainty of TOA observations, being three times the claimed signal, I suppose not.
Peter Berenyi’s analysis on my blog which you liked shows it is likely the TOA balance went negative in the last six years. The question is: Is this an indication of a lack of ‘committed warming’ from co2, or the result of lowering the height of radiation to space or reduced humidity in the upper atmosphere due to low solar activity? (shrinking of thermosphere and correlation of 300mb specific humidity to solar activity levels).
Either way, the AGW proponents are caught between a rock and a hard place, because even if it is the latter, natural variation is stronger then they have concluded, and that means less of an effect from co2 than they have claimed.
The sooner they recognise this, the more quickly we can escape from rhetoric at loggerheads, and return to realistic scientific debate.
Indeed, the global mean temperature pattern is cyclic with a slight overall warming of 0.6 deg C per decade:
http://bit.ly/cO94in
ELEMENTARY ARGUMENT AGAINST AGW.
Here is the global mean temperature anomaly (GMTA) for the last 130 years.
http://bit.ly/iUqG8I
Let us define two periods:
Period 1=> 1880 to 1940
Period 2=> 1940 to 2000
From the above graph, the approximate increase in GMTA in the two periods:
Period 1=> 0.4 deg C
Period 2=> 0.4 deg C.
From the above result, the rate of change of GMTA for the 60-years period before and after 1940 are nearly identical.