This might be a bit overzealous per Morano’s unique writing style, but compared to some of the stuff we’ve seen from warmists, pretty mild. Lots of useful links and notes – Anthony
By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Below is the Introduction to the report. Full report is available here. (PDF)
INTRODUCTION:
Many of the proponents of man-made global warming are now claiming that climate change is worse than they predicted. According to an October 18, 2011 Daily Climate article, global warming activists claim that the “evidence builds that scientists underplay climate impacts” and “if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested.”
But this exclusive Climate Depot exhaustive A-Z Climate Reality Check report on the scientific reality of the failure of man-made global warming shatters any such illusions that the climate is “worse than we thought.” As the real world evidence mounts that global warming claims are failing, the climate activists have ramped up predictions of future climate change impacts to declare that it “worse than we thought.” But a prediction or projection of 50-100 years into the future is not “evidence.” Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears.
The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim — from A-Z — the claims of the promoters of man-made climate fears are failing, and in many instances the claims are moving in the opposite direction. The global warming movement is suffering the scientific death of a thousand cuts. This Climate Depot special report categorizes and indexes the full range of climate developments in a handy A-Z reference guide. The A-Z report includes key facts, peer-reviewed studies and the latest data and developments with links for further reading, on an exhaustive range of man-made global warming claims.
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers and the ice is expanding, the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007, polar bears are thriving, sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping, Cholera and Malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions, Mount Kilimanjaro melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover, global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more and many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead, deaths due to extreme weather are radically declining, global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows, the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined, the oceans are missing their predicted heat content, big tornados have dramatically declined since the 1970s, droughts are not historically unusual nor caused by mankind, there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather, scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement, the UN IPCC has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists, former Vice President Al Gore is now under siege by his fellow global warming activists for attempting to link every bad weather event to man-made global warming and scientists from around the world continue to dissent from man-made climate fears at a rapid pace.
Proponents of anthropogenic climate change have been reduced to making outlandish claims of a mythical 97% or 98% consensus. See: Global Warming: A ‘98% Consensus Of Nothing’: ‘Only shameless activists or statistically ignorant claim that survey of 77 anonymous scientists’ is proof of 98% ‘consensus’. Once esteemed science groups like the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) have now corrupted and have used taxpayer money to lobby for the passage of climate bills. See: Ralph Cicerone’s Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group — ‘political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov’t funding’ & NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: $6 million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & MIT’s Richard Lindzen: ‘Cicerone of NAS is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If gov’t wants carbon control, that is the answer that the NAS will provide’
Movement ‘was bound to fail’
A movement that had Al Gore – one of the most divisive political figures – as the face of the movement, was bound to fail. A movement that utilized the scandal ridden United Nations – which is massively distrusted by the American people – as the repository of science, was doomed to fail. Gore and the UN IPCC are now reduced to pointing to every storm, flood, hurricane or tornado as proof of man-made global warming. The UN has been reduced to blaming man-made global warming for prostitution. See: Climate Astrology — ‘It Has Been Foretold’ of Extreme Weather: ‘UN IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calendars’ & Climate Astrology borrows from the past: ‘Before That Witch Moved Into The Neighborhood, We Never Had Bad Weather Or Disease’
But a scientific moment of clarity is now prevailing: The UN and the U.S. Congress do not have the power to legislate, tax or regulate the weather. See: Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘The idea that Congress can stop climate change is just hilarious’ – Warns of ‘climate change cult’ – July 8, 2009 – Prominent scientists continue to challenge the alleged “consensus.” See: Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents! Dr. Ivar Giaever Resigns from American Physical Society Over Group’s Promotion of Man-Made Global Warming
‘Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables’
The idea that CO2, a trace essential gas in the atmosphere that humans exhale form their mouth, is the main climate driver is now being challenged by peer-reviewed studies, data and scientists from around the globe. It is not simply, the sun or CO2 when looking at global temperatures, it is the Sun, volcanoes, tilt of the Earth’s axis, water vapor, methane, clouds, ocean cycles, plate tectonics, albedo, atmospheric dust, Atmospheric Circulation, cosmic rays, particulates like Carbon Soot, forests and land use, etc. Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, not just CO2.
Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London explained the crux of the entire global warming debate when he rebutted the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver.
“As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor (CO2), is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote.
Even the global warming activists at RealClimate.org admitted to this key climate reality in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org explained.
The global warming movement continues to lose scientists, many formerly with the UN IPCC. See: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
The future does not look bright for global warming activists as more scandals continue to rock the movement. See: Climate Depot’s Exclusive Round Up of Climategate 2.0 – Read about the most comprehensive report on the latest global warming scandal – Even warmists are lamenting that Climate 2.o may be ‘devastating’: ‘These [emails] sound worse than I thought at first – their impact will be devastating’
MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen has observed that “Ordinary people see through man-made climate fears — but educated people are very vulnerable.”
A-Z Climate Reality Check (Editor’s Note: This A-Z report will be regularly updated and will serve as a handy reference guide to man-made global warming claims.)
Full PDF report is available here.
Ammonite, It has been said 17-30yrs is need to test a “Climate modeling” forecast. Well the only thing we can use to test projections of Temp Vs CO2 are not even close:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/13/is-jim-hansens-global-temperature-skillful/
So where is your proof most of the recent warming is man-made and not just climate NOISE?
While I applaud the document, I also see some questions being raised. Many of the sources are blogs and religiously biased newspapers, which may not legitimate sources. The fact that it has a religion section alone might be a red flag to many. Religion has no place in scientific study and the claims made in it. 95% of what is in this study uses non-cited information from the original website, which is intrinsically a religiously biased, non-academic website.
I guess I’d like to see more, independent, scientific links and/or references. That would help in discussions with those supporting AGW.
“Many of the proponents of man-made global warming are now claiming that climate change is worse than they predicted. According to an October 18, 2011 Daily Climate article, global warming activists claim that the “evidence builds that scientists underplay climate impacts” and “if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested.”
While global temperatures were actually rising significantly, claims were made by some scientists rarely at the time about the possibility this may lead to dangerous global warming in future. When temperatures reached the peak around 1998 these claims increased how bad global warming was going to be (ironic at the time this was) based on a very strong El Nino. Temperatures dropped significantly with the proceeding La Nina and then claims were it cooled down due to natural circumstances with La Nina and global warming will resume with future El Nino’s. UK’s future children will never see snow again etc. When ongoing El Nino’s occurred after this period despite global temperatures flat lined and claims increased, global warming was worse than we thought with hurricanes, floods, droughts and extreme weather to increase more often. (this has never been true by stats or by science links with AGW and ENSO, AO, AMO, NAO, PDO and blocking highs in weather patterns)
When another La Nina occurred for the first time in a while (since 2001) and this showed a short term cooling period for global temperatures with claims that global warming was worse than we thought. This warming was just around the corner and will be worse then ever. Not long after with the realisation that the globe has not been warming for quite a while [then almost as long as period as the scare from Hansen (1988) in the first place] climate change was the worse then previously expected. One strong El Nino in 2010, second over recent decades to 1997/98 El Nino with global temperature reaching 2nd highest too.
If global temperatures were being driven by AGW 2nd highest is not high enough. Claims that climate change was worse than we thought. Global temperatures declined after with two successive La Nina’s with reports recently of the warmest La Nina ever recorded. Claims recently that climate change is worse then we thought. Arctic ice has been declining slowly over recent decades, but how about Antarctica and the fact the short term data for both poles is too short to be able to distinguish between natural change, never mind how much human influence there is.
Yet during all this period global temperatures have remained stable with no change in any claims mentioned that is different from natural frequency of weather events. All the apparent extremes that were to occur have failed. It is now climate change because global warming failed, but as climate always changes there is nothing to distinguish between natural or not. It is really worse then we thought when it becomes trying to practice climate science. (One of newest sciences around today and one of the most amateurish) If the government and expert scientists knew the world was going to end for many of us based on scientific fact in a few years or so (super volcano, comet or asteroid etc) do you think they would actually tell the public every day for years before or wait until the last minute as possible to prevent disorder?
It originally started as a genuine science concern that I also believed at the time, but has now become one big scam. Virtually nobody disagrees with a little AGW (not just CO2), but CAGW is a totally different matter with no scientific evidence what’s so ever. Passing off scientists that believe in a little AGW as CAGW or dangerous climate change is just dishonest and sums up the amateurish group of people generally involved in climate science alarmism.
NOTE – Amateurish because being new science and still early days with many variables that humans have so for failed to truly understand. (there are many others not mentioned here including troposphere hot spot, positive feedback, stratospheric cooling, aerosols, black soot, warming in the pipeline, clouds, sun and oceans etc)
Ammonite;
A clear implication of Foster, Rahmstorf is that energy is accumulating in the atmosphere/ocean.>>>
The argo buoys have been showing a declining ocean heat content from the time they first began reporting until the most recent. Before we had the Argo buoys, we had ships taking water temps through their cooling tubes and before that we had ships taking temps by throwing a bucket over the side and pulling it up to stick a thermometer in.
OHC is FALLING and that dang ocean thingy weights 1,400 TIMES as much as the atmosphere. Where the oceans go…the tiny atmosphere will follow.
otsar;
What should we be doing with all of that nasty combustion water. Perhaps capturing it and injecting it into some deep formation? Could some people be chasing the wrong goose?
quiz hint: think about the effects of saturation.>>>
Cool new tactic, you and ammonite working together to try and hijack the thread. Team Trolling!
Anyway, CO2 is sitting at about 400 parts per million, and at sea level, water vapour runs as high as 40,000 ppm. So, if CO2 has increased by 120 ppm as suggested by many studies since 1920, and for every CO2 molecule released, two more H2O molecules were released, that would raise water vapour to 40,240….
Not that it would actually happen though. the “extras” would be absorbed by natural processes that would return the actual water vapour levels to normal right quick…faster than we’re releasing them by orders of magnitude.
Bob B says: December 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm
“UAH and RSS Satellites have shown 2009/2010 as NOT the warmest years.”
Agreed. Please read Foster, Rahmstorf 2011. Their assessment of “warmest” is made with ENSO, volcanic eruptions and solar influence backed out.
“Surface station measurements have been shown to be pure steaming crap.”
BEST + remarkable agreement in the underlying trends of surface and satellite series (the ~0.16C/decade mentioned earlier) suggest otherwise.
Bob B says: December 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm
Jim Hansen’s early model has a climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 of ~4.2C. Refer to Knutti and Hegerl 2008 http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf. Median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C.
otsar says: December 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm
quiz hint: think about the effects of saturation.
Indeed. Satellite measurement showing decreasing radiation escaping the earth in the absorption bands of CO2 year on year is a strong indicator that we are far from saturation. Venus is another.
Ammonite says:
December 8, 2011 at 5:35 pm
otsar says: December 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm
quiz hint: think about the effects of saturation.
Indeed. Satellite measurement showing decreasing radiation escaping the earth in the absorption bands of CO2 year on year is a strong indicator that we are far from saturation. Venus is another.>>>
Do you jokers thing you are fooling anyone? Ammonite makes a statement that is misleading and questionable, otsar jumps in with an innocent sounding question that looks sorta kinda like a legit search for information, and then Ammonite responds with “Indeed. blah, blahm blah” and takes the opportunity to respond with a regurgitation of his original point.
Claims without links to data, no explanation of the physics, no mathematical formulas or analysis, just two trolls talking to each other on what clearly looks like a predetermined script and hoping that this subterfuge will make their “science” look less dodgy.
Of course the question is, less dodgy than what? Enron?
Ammonite, yes it will take another 30years to see that model as crap as well.
” Median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C”.
Early signs showing pending crap:
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2011/la-nina-drives-hadcrut-nhsh-13-month-mean-outside-1sigma-model-spread/
There is really good tutorial on band saturation here: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf:
Amateur troll hunters should watch the Norwegian film The Troll Hunter. Those fluent in Norwegian and familiar with scandinavian humour will have fun with it, those not, will be simply be mystified and left out in the cold. Who knows, it might even be educational for some not familiar with far north humour.
“Matt G says:
December 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm
Global temperatures declined after with two successive La Nina’s with reports recently of the warmest La Nina ever recorded.”
“Ammonite says:
December 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Agreed. Please read Foster, Rahmstorf 2011. Their assessment of “warmest” is made with ENSO, volcanic eruptions and solar influence backed out.”
“Ammonite says:
December 8, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C.”
I will roughly assume that at the rate we are going now, the +3 C per doubling is close to +3 C per century which is 0.03 C per year.
Keeping the above in mind, I would like to compare apples with apples. I agree this La Nina is the warmest. The anomaly according to Hadcrut3 is 0.357 for 2011 to the end of October and I will assume any change for the last two months will be negligible. Previously, we had a La Nina in 2000 where the anomaly was 0.271. We also had one in 1996 where the anomaly was 0.137. It has been 15 years since the 1996 La Nina and 11 years since the 2000 La Nina.
Now if the +3 C were true, then according to the 1996 La Nina, the anomaly for 2011 should be 0.137 + 0.03(15) = 0.587. Likewise, according to the 2000 La Nina, the anomaly for 2011 should be 0.271 + 0.03(11) = 0.601. The anomaly for 1998 was 0.548. So this La Nina should be warmer than 1998 if the warming is indeed catastrophic and your 3 C is correct. Since 0.548 is lower than both 0.587 and 0.601, I can only conclude that your “scores of studies using multiple different approaches” is way too high. Do you agree?
Werner Brozek says: December 8, 2011 at 7:11 pm
I will roughly assume that at the rate we are going now, the +3 C per doubling is close to +3 C per century which is 0.03 C per year.
Hi Werner. I am not sure why transient sensitivity (the yearly rise) should translate to equilibrium sensitivity in 100 years. If you assumed 200 years things would balance (in your equation). If you assumed 20 years things would be way out. More to the point, assuming that transient response stays linear until equilibrium is probably not justified at all.
otsar;
There is really good tutorial on band saturation here: http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/archer.ch4.greenhouse_gases.pdf:>>>
Nice try. That’s not a tutorial on band saturation, it is a brief description of radiative physics in preperation for coming up with theoretical answers regarding various gas concentrations at various frequencies base on a COMPUTER MODEL so that the students can demonstrate their ability to run a COMPUTER MODEL correctly and get answers that match the theory programmed into the COMPUTER MODEL but there’s no requirement at all to show that the calculated results from the COMPUTER MODEL have any realistic relationship to actual measured results. Nor does the article mention that the COMPUTER MODEL doesn’t take into account feedback of any sort, which the IPCC keeps reducing their estimate of because they’ve discovered that their COMPUTER MODELS were using estimates way too high.
Any other tutorials to point us at? How about a graphics program to hide the decline? Or maybe how to write code that statistically weights data until it looks like a hockey stick? Is there a tutorial on getting journal editors fired? Putting data sets in upside down and hoping nobody notices? How about one for building a 1000 year temperature reconstruction with 50% of the data from a single tree? Is there one called “Thread Hijacking for Dummies” too?
Bob B says: December 8, 2011 at 6:14 pm
Ammonite, yes it will take another 30 years to see that model as crap as well. “Median sensitivity from scores of studies using multiple different approaches is +3C”. Early signs showing pending crap…
Bob B, I hope you are correct. From the article you linked to: “All trends computed based on monthly values of observations since 2000 are positive but also lower than trend of 0.197C/dec associated with monthly values of the multi-model mean from Jan 2000 through Oct 2011.”
Under Foster, Rahmstorf 2011 the underlying trend is calculated to be ~0.16C/decade. This is certainly lower, but not outrageously so.
davidmhoffer says: December 8, 2011 at 6:12 pm
Do you jokers thing you are fooling anyone? Ammonite makes a statement that is misleading and questionable, otsar jumps in with an innocent sounding question…
Ah, conspiracy theories. As otsar is apparently fluent in Norwegian and I live in Australia only you DMH have been able to penetrate our dastardly scheme. You see, otsar is just rahmstorf rearranged with a few letters missing (Harry Potter would be all over it) and I am the secret love child of Craig Foster from a Brazilian soap opera. The illuminati will not be impressed now that our cover is blown.
“Ammonite says:
December 8, 2011 at 7:47 pm
Hi Werner. I am not sure why transient sensitivity (the yearly rise) should translate to equilibrium sensitivity in 100 years. If you assumed 200 years things would balance (in your equation).”
Hi Ammonite. At the present time, we are at 390 ppm and it is increasing by 2 ppm each year. In order for it to double from 280 to 560, it would take another 170 ppm. At the present rate, this would be another 85 years, or to the year 2096. I realize things may speed up or slow down depending on technology and the availability of hydrocarbons. As well, the effect is logarithmic. Assuming the temperature went up by 0.8 C so far, then in 85 years it would presumably go up another 2.2 C. This translates to 2.6 C in 100 years so I believe I am at least in the ball park to assume 3 C per doubling translates to about + 0.03 C per year at the present time, especially considering the logarithmic response. This is roughly double the 0.016/year you are referring to. That number (0.016/year) may be true over the last 31 years, but did you know the slope is negative for RSS since March 1997?
Ammonite;
OK, I’ll take your word for there being no collusion between you and otsar, and that you are the love child of Craig Foster. Well hold on… since you’ve announced it, it isn’t a secret…but if it isn’t a secret then everyone knows….but Craig Foster is a fictional character, so you’ve claimed something that isn’t true and attributed it to someone that doesn’t exist.
Very clever! Are you a climate scientist too?
Ammonite;
More to the point, assuming that transient response stays linear until equilibrium is probably not justified at all.>>>
Correct. The transient response curve is much steeper at the beginning of the curve and decelerates as it approaches equilibrium. So, if we’re at .o3/yr now and equilibrium is 200 years…we won’t even get to spitting distance of +3. Dontcha just hate how physics works?
we won’t even get to spitting distance of +3.>>>
meant to say of +2. actually that might be high too. more like…aw crap, I’d have to figure natural ln function of CO2 going from 280 to 400 multiply by time constant of 5.35 then solve for area under the curve to arrive at some sort of rough average from 1920 to now to work backwards into a time constant based on 200 years which would be roughly 40 years then use that to arrive at where we are in the equilibrium curve and extrapolate that out to arrive at a likely equilibrium sensitivity based on the combination of temperature data and CO2 increases since 1920…yikes, I’d have to be a physicist to do all that so I’ll just guestimate… less than 1. Lots of work being done showing that feedbacks are net negative…so, yup, less than one makes a buncha sense.
Now if I was Werner…I could actually do the math….
Werner Brozek says: December 8, 2011 at 9:22 pm
“Assuming the temperature went up by 0.8 C so far, then in 85 years it would presumably go up another 2.2 C.”
Hi Werner. Are you assuming the temperature response is instantaneous? Suppose CO2 went to 560ppm tomorrow. Would you expect temperature to rise by 2.2C tomorrow as well? It takes time to heat up the ocean. (My apologies if this is not your assumption.) This effect is sometimes referred to as “heat in the pipeline”. The earth’s temperature has not yet stabilised for the CO2 already present in the atmosphere. It will continue to rise even if CO2 stays at 390ppm.
“That number (0.016/year) may be true over the last 31 years, but did you know the slope is negative for RSS since March 1997?”
Please review the Foster, Rahmstorf link above. The 0.016/year is almost constant once known short term effects are removed. Measuring from El-Nino peaks to La-Nina troughs (or vice-versa) does not give an adequate expectation for future behaviour.
Ammonite
Yes, I agree there is a consistent warming trend—but it is consistent since the last ice age that has nothing to do with CO2. :
http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/index.php?eID=tx_cms_showpic&file=uploads%2Fpics%2Fakasofu.jpg&md5=ee101a944b2712a8ba43180ad7dbdd72664879f4¶meters%5B0%5D=YTo0OntzOjU6IndpZHRoIjtzOjQ6IjgwMG0iO3M6NjoiaGVpZ2h0IjtzOjM6IjYw¶meters%5B1%5D=MCI7czo3OiJib2R5VGFnIjtzOjQyOiI8Ym9keSBiZ0NvbG9yPSIjZmZmZmZmIiBz¶meters%5B2%5D=dHlsZT0ibWFyZ2luOjA7Ij4iO3M6NDoid3JhcCI7czozNzoiPGEgaHJlZj0iamF2¶meters%5B3%5D=YXNjcmlwdDpjbG9zZSgpOyI%2BIHwgPC9hPiI7fQ%3D%3D
I also agree CO2 will cause warming but with 0.75-1.2C with a doubling of CO2—nowhere near 3C!
Ammonite–
Working link here:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
What I think you are seeing is “Climate Scientists” cherry picking data over a short period. I believe the trend you want to believe in is nothing but climate noise superimposed over the
:constant natural warming trend I link to above. BTW you still haven’t told me why the Ocean heat contenet is droppiing? And it’s by a huge amount!
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/2011-update-of-the-comparison-of-upper-ocean-heat-content-changes-with-the-giss-model-predictions/
Ammonite,
I asked: “a) on a larger timescale, temperatures have risen (Roman, medieval warm periods) then fallen (dark ages, little ice age) then risen, so in what way is this current warming unprecedented?”
You replied: “Current warming is clearly not unprecedented on geological time scales. It is important to make distinctions between what scientists are claiming and what journalists are reporting.”
You are agreeing then that there is nothing unusual about this warming, yet offer no evidence that is man made.
Question b) “Why has the warming stopped despite higher than ever co2 levels?”
Your reply: “?? Warming is proceeding at ~0.16C/decade in all 5 temperature sets tested and has been consistent across the 1979-2010 period with 2009/10 being the two warmest years in all 5 cases. This is the point of Foster, Rahmstorf 2011.”
You conveniently ignore that there has been no warming in the last 10 years. So let me be more specfic – why has there been no warming in the last 10 years if co2 is increasing?
Question c) “Where is the missing heat that Trenberth is on about?”
Your reply: “A clear implication of Foster, Rahmstorf is that energy is accumulating in the atmosphere/ocean. Foster challenges Trenberth’s assertions on warming significance. Warming is significant with known short term influences removed ”
Are you saying that there shouldn’t be any heat accumulation in the oceans? If not, how can there be a radiative imbalance without heat accumulation?
d)”Why is there more warming in the northern hemisphere than southern if co2 is a well mixed gas?”
Reply: “Land/ocean ratio.”
Tell me more. In what way does this land/ocean ratio translate to less warming? Again, if there is no land to warm, then the heat must be going into the oceans, but it aint. See c) above.
“Ammonite says:
December 9, 2011 at 12:57 am
Hi Werner. Are you assuming the temperature response is instantaneous? Suppose CO2 went to 560ppm tomorrow. Would you expect temperature to rise by 2.2C tomorrow as well? It takes time to heat up the ocean. (My apologies if this is not your assumption.) This effect is sometimes referred to as “heat in the pipeline”. The earth’s temperature has not yet stabilised for the CO2 already present in the atmosphere. It will continue to rise even if CO2 stays at 390ppm.”
Hi Ammonite. I do not believe that the air temperatures will go up by 3 C for a doubling of CO2. But whatever increase there may be, it would be pretty fast. On a sunny day, it is hot but when clouds roll over, the temperature drops very quickly and vice versa. So I expect air temperatures to be influenced soon however the (negative) feedbacks would also be observed. So if CO2 went to 560 ppm tomorrow, I will take a wild guess here and predict the temperatures will go up by another 0.3 C within a month. But this is a guess and I cannot prove it.
Now as for the oceans, that is a totally different thing. As I recall, it was never really made clear whether the presumed 3 C increase included the oceans. Can you tell me if the oceans also were expected to go up by 3 C eventually?
If this is the case, then it would take a thousand years for the deep ocean to get the heat. On the other hand, if the assumption was just that the air warms by 3 C and this heat then goes into the ocean, the ocean temperature increase would not even be able to be measured.
The part below is from an earlier post of mine:
I did some calculations with the following numbers:
Mass of air is 5 x 10^18 kg;
Specific heat capacity of air is 1 kJ/kgK
Assume a 3 C rise in air temperature due to AGW. (I do not agree with this scenario, But I am just crunching numbers assuming that is the case.)
Mass of oceans is 1.4 x 10^21 kg;
Specific heat capacity of ocean water is about 4 kJ/kgK
The question I am trying to answer is that IF we for the moment assume the air temperature were to potentially go up by 3 degrees C, but IF we then assume ALL this heat goes into the ocean instead, how much would the ocean warm up?
Using mct(air) = mct(ocean), I get an answer of 0.0027 C is the increase in the temperature of the ocean. Of course, this cannot be measured, nor would the ocean expand to any noticable degree with this added temperature. But IF Trenberth is right that the heat can go into the ocean, what are we worried about?