Steve McIntyre writes:
In the context of IPCC SOD FIgure 1.5 (or similar comparison of models and observations), CW13 is slightly warmer than HadCRUT4 but the difference is small relative to the discrepancy between models and observations; the CW13 variation is also outside the Figure 1.5 envelope.
Figure 1. Cowtan and Way 2013 hybrid plotted onto IPCC AR5SOD Figure 1.5
Next, here is a simple plot showing the difference between the CW13 hybrid and HadCRUT 4. Up to the end of 2005, there was a zero trend between the two; the difference has arisen entirely since 2005.
See more here:
Pity the polar data, tortured into an inadequate confession. After all, greenhouse theory says the tropical troposphere is supposed to warm first and fastest.
What happened to all the heat that was hiding deep in the oceans?
How did it suddenly migrate to the Arctic – retrospectively too, apparently.
Clearly this is groundbreaking new scientific theory!
the difference has arisen entirely since 2005.
Could it be because that’s when Arctic amplification really started getting underway?
So one man’s BS doesn’t match another’s? Its starting to look like the data sets are all fake religions.
Note that surface temperatures were above the projection in 1998, because of the El Nino (positive ENSO index event) that year.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/psd/enso/mei/
Notice how the ENSO index has been much smaller lately, with a lot of negative La Ninas which store heat deep in the Pacific ocean where ARGO and the central limit theorem have measured it. It’s worth pondering what will happen when we have another El Nino like the one in 1998. All that heat hasn’t vanished, and we’ll have to deal with it sooner or later. Luckily for WUWT and Climate Audit, that future temperature spike (whatever its human cost) could serve as the basis for articles like “Global warming stopped in 201X!”
Apparently, going down the up escalator never gets old:
http://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html
Darn, Steve M beat me to the apparent 2005 breakpoint in the difference between the HADCRUT and Cowart and Ray (2013) data. My versions are here:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/figure-44.png
My post will hopefully be finished tomorrow and I’ll explain why that’s odd…among other things the warmistas have overlooked.
I have just posted this on Lucia’s “The Blackboard”
As a humble member of the public who is expected to pay for most of this climate science research guff and who as a member of that low life uninformed public who are expected to lay down and be data raped by every passing wannabe climate scientist, it seems to me that the finangling [ I could use some quite unprintable language to describe this ] of the data where no data exists to get a result that ensures that what is seen to be happening in the climate, isn’t according to the non existent data.
In this case attempting to dispel the idea that there is a “Pause” in the warming using some fancy and argued about statistical techniques applied to that non existent data taken from a region where there are almost no records to justify the claim there isn’t a Pause of over 16 years running in the climb in global temperatures.
So why is it that this particular statistical lash-up couldn’t also be applied to those 20 years of supposed increasing temperatures from 1978 to 2007, a period which is only 4 years longer than the Pause and on which 20 years the entire global warming meme / ideology is based.
Using Cowtan & Way’s statistical techniques and the same identical data base of temperatures it could probably be proven that there was no increase in global temperatures during that 20 years of supposed warming.
Why is that +/- 0.2 degree gray band always shown? It is the equivalent to 20 years of warming. Whoever put that gray band on the graph doesn’t really believe in global warming. Take it away and the correlation (models to measurements) really looks ugly.
“Notice how the ENSO index has been much smaller lately, with a lot of negative La Ninas which store heat deep in the Pacific ocean where ARGO and the central limit theorem have measured it”
So in the 50’s-60’s-70’s, when we had a negative PDO and more cooling La Nina’s and also modest global cooling in the atmosphere, the Pacific Ocean must have also been storing deep heat. Correct DS?
Sure sounds like a natural cycle to me. Unless you want to elaborate on how CO2 can cause a negative PDO around every 30 years along with the increase in La Nina’s during that period………even before CO2 went up much.
Temperature have in fact warmed the last 100+ years (like an elevator going up as you stated). But the take home point is that during that period, like the 50’s-60’s-70’s, a natural cycle was even more powerful than CO’s warming effect…………….unless you want to DENY that temperatures dropped a bit during that 30 year period.
Since temperatures DID drop for that 30 year period, (and others with a -PDO) the analogy of going down the up escalator is a good one………..except skeptical science clearly doesn’t understand this effect.
They completely miss the correlation between the -PDO and atmospheric cooling based on the uptrending temp graph they show on your link and the silly little uncorrelated to anything downtrend lines they made up along the way during the mostly +PDO period.
Actually, the correlation on that graph is with the authors lack of understanding of how this meteorologist thinks the atmosphere works.
Dumb Scientist;
All that heat hasn’t vanished, and we’ll have to deal with it sooner or later.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Could you help me out here? Because I’d really like to understand this.
The oceans have a heat capacity about 1200 times that of the atmosphere. So, if the heat actually is going into the oceans instead of the atmosphere, then it will take 1200 times as much energy to heat them up by one degree as it would to heat the atmosphere by one degree. Now I get it, if all that energy were to come back all at once, that would make for one hot atmosphere, you bet. What I don’t understand is how this is going to happen.
See, if the oceans did get to be one degree warmer than the atmosphere, the most they could increase the temperature of the atmosphere at that point would be…. one degree. At which point the whole system would be back in equilibrium and the other 1199 times as much heat would just be stuck in the ocean with no place to go.
Can you please explain to me the part I don’t understand?
Mike Maguire says:
November 18, 2013 at 3:39 pm
So in the 50′s-60′s-70′s, when we had a negative PDO and more cooling La Nina’s and also modest global cooling in the atmosphere, the Pacific Ocean must have also been storing deep heat. Correct DS? Sure sounds like a natural cycle to me.
====================
This part seems reasonable, but it would be difficult to confirm because measurements of the deep ocean were rather sparse before ARGO. Scientists are aware of natural cycles (in fact, most natural cycles were named by scientists) which is why attribution studies place bounds on the amount of warming that could be contributed by PDO/etc. compared to human influences.
The problem I have with these revelations of the real nature of actual warming is that they are at the very limits of our knowledge, yet they confirm what the researchers believed all along. In 2007 the lack of warming was due to the cooling impact of aerosols. Then Kevin Trenberth resolved his angst of the missing heat, by postulating that it was hidden in the deep oceans. Now Cowtan and Way postulate that it is again where we cannot measure it, or (as Steve McIntyre implies) by correcting existing data. We have to trust the computer models, run by the expert scientists.
There were two issues with the aerosols. The first was that they were concentrated over very small areas of the plant, where the major industrial areas are concentrated. So one would expect a significant difference in temperature trends in the areas of Sao Paulo, New York, Shanghai and Seoul when compared to less industrial areas. Seperately, the radiative forcing impact of aerosols should not fit together to form a nice convenient picture, like it did in AR4. Complex data ain’t like that. Check the numbers at http://manicbeancounter.com/2012/04/10/aerosols-the-unipcc-ar4-adjustment-factor/
There is a single big issue with Cowtan and Way, that Steve McIntyre has identified. The missing temperature increase is all after 2005. The 16% of the earth not covered by HADCRUT4 is also concentrated in the polar regions. If there was a whole degree of warming in this period, it might be perceived in a significant increase in the rate of melting of the polar ice-caps.
Sheppard et al. 2012 has estimates (table 1 page 1188) covering the period 1992-2011. The comparing the periods 2000-2011 and 2005-2010, the authors found a trivial increase in Greenland ice melt and no change in Antarctica.
Shepard et al. 2012. A Reconciled Estimate of Ice-Sheet Mass Balance, Science 338, 1183 (2012); DOI: 10.1126/science.1228102
Another issue, analogous to my issue above with aerosols. In their notes, the authors show that the Met Office postulated in 2009 a distribution of likely warming rates. Lo and behold, Cowtan and Way’s estimates just happen to land slam dunk in the middle of the distribution four years later. I don’t believe it. The Met Office have got a forecast right for once!
http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~kdc3/papers/coverage2013/background.html
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 3:54 pm
======================
Good question. Basically, the Earth’s climate isn’t ever in equilibrium. Heat stored in the ocean doesn’t emerge during an El Nino because the ocean as a whole became warmer than the atmosphere. That heat emerges when the upwelling of cold water to the surface temporarily weakens, so the ocean doesn’t store heat as effectively as when the ENSO index is 0 (or neutral). During a La Nina, that upwelling strengthens so the ocean stores heat even more effectively.
Instead of drawing an analogy with static thermodynamics, the complex dependence of ENSO on ocean currents suggests that an analogy involving dynamics might be more informative:
Imagine filling a measuring cup at a constant rate while the water sloshes around. Sometimes the water will pile up against the side of the cup that doesn’t have the measuring tick marks. As it piles up, the water level against the tick marks might go down even as the faucet pours water into the cup.
In this analogy, the water level in the cup is the Earth’s total energy and the constant water flow is the extra radiative power added by human emissions. The side of the cup with the tick marks is the Earth’s surface, where most of our temperature sensors are. The other side of the cup is the deep ocean, which we can’t measure as well as the surface.
Water sloshing towards the tickmarks is like a temporarily warm El Nino, while water sloshing away from the tickmarks is like a temporarily cool La Nina.
Humans add extra water to the cup, but it sloshes around the cup naturally.
Humans add extra energy to the Earth, but it sloshes around the Earth naturally.
“which is why attribution studies place bounds on the amount of warming that could be contributed by PDO/etc. compared to human influences”
Instead of studies, to be more accurate, that should say theories or models using mathematical equations to represent the physical laws of the theory.
There is nobody that has been able to separate out the amount of PDO, solar and other natural cycles from effects of humans.
Again, the planet cooled for 30 years prior to this recent warming………..and global climate models predicted the recent warming(late 70’s-80’s-90’s) would continue without dialing in the effect of the -PDO and La Nina’s that you mentioned or any other natural cycles or non human effects.
So these “attribution studies placing bounds” and global climate models missed the temp stall the last 15 years.
Call it what you want, or where the heat went and or why but it got missed which means that the sources were in fact UNABLE to place bounds on warming/cooling from the PDO.
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 3:54 pm
See, if the oceans did get to be one degree warmer than the atmosphere, the most they could increase the temperature of the atmosphere at that point would be…. one degree.
Do we have time to check this out?
I did a calculation based on a graph that showed the top 2000 m of the ocean gained 25 x 10^22 J over the last 55 years.
The total mass of the ocean above 2000 m is 48% of the total mass of the ocean.
The total mass of the ocean is 1.37 x 10^21 kg.
The specific heat capacity of ocean water is 4000 J/kgK.
Applying H = mct, I get a change in t of
25 x 10^22 J/(0.48 x 1.37 x 10^21 kg x 4000 J/kgK) = 0.1 K. At this rate it would take about 500 years to go up 1.0 C. I read that the average temperature of the ocean is 6 C. So to get to the air temperature of 14 C would take 4000 years. Then we have to wait another 500 years to go 1 C above the air temperature to see if what you say is correct. Of course if the deep ocean has to gain all that heat as well, then the wait is far longer.
Mike Maguire says:
November 18, 2013 at 4:13 pm
Instead of studies, to be more accurate, that should say theories or models using mathematical equations to represent the physical laws of the theory. There is nobody that has been able to separate out the amount of PDO, solar and other natural cycles from effects of humans.
=====================
Huber and Knutti 2011 used observations of natural and human radiative forcings (Fig 1a) and observations of surface temperatures (Fig 1b) and observations of ocean heat content (Fig 1c) to separate natural and human effects:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/huber11natgeo.pdf
Dumb Scientist;
Imagine filling a measuring cup at a constant rate while the water sloshes around. Sometimes the water will pile up against the side of the cup that doesn’t have the measuring tick marks. As it piles up, the water level against the tick marks might go down even as the faucet pours water into the cup.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well that’s wonderful Dumb Scientist. I just don’t understand how water when poured in a stream into a volume constrained by a physical vessel of known dimensions at a rate that results in break down of laminar flow has anything to do with energy fluxes due to processes such as conduction, evaporation and radiance.
I’m also confused as to how you know that ENSO changes the way that energy is stored in the oceans. I mean, one of the things the climate modelers have universally admitted is that they can’t model ENSO at all. It just seems to me, and perhaps you could explain this part too, that if they can’t model ENSO then it means they don’t actually know how it works? And if they don’t know how it works, how can they say what it does or doesn’t do to the way energy is stored in the first place.
Then there’s that whole thing that Mr Brozek raised which showed that based on some fancy calculations, the temperature of the oceans will take 500 years to rise one degree. I mean, that’s a really long time, isn’t it? And only one degree at that? Plus, then he says that the oceans are only 6 degrees in the first place. Well, I know from reading a lot of stuff on the internet that the average surface temperature of earth is about 15 degrees. So, in 500 years, if the oceans have actually gotten to one degree warmer, wouldn’t they still be 8 degrees cooler than the average? How does the heat get transmitted from something cooler to something warmer? I mean I remember doing an experiment in grade 3 where the teacher had a metal rod and a bunson burner and she put one end in the flame from the bunson burner and the other end got warmer, but not as warm as the hot end in the flame and I just can’t figure out how the warm end could possibly make the hot end even hotter.
Really confused on this stuff.
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:01 pm
Well that’s wonderful Dumb Scientist. I just don’t understand how water when poured in a stream into a volume constrained by a physical vessel of known dimensions at a rate that results in break down of laminar flow has anything to do with energy fluxes due to processes such as conduction, evaporation and radiance.
======================
It’s just an analogy that tries to show how heat can slosh back and forth between atmosphere and ocean for dynamic reasons rather than purely static thermodynamic reasons. Not all analogies work for all people, though.
======================
I’m also confused as to how you know that ENSO changes the way that energy is stored in the oceans. I mean, one of the things the climate modelers have universally admitted is that they can’t model ENSO at all. It just seems to me, and perhaps you could explain this part too, that if they can’t model ENSO then it means they don’t actually know how it works? And if they don’t know how it works, how can they say what it does or doesn’t do to the way energy is stored in the first place.
======================
As far as I understand it, ENSO variability in models is getting better in the sense that the overall frequency of El Nino and La Nina events and their approximate magnitude is becoming realistic. But the timing of El Nino and La Nina events is essentially random. In that sense we don’t really know what causes the currents to change well enough to predict it with any confidence.
But that’s different (and much harder) than knowing what happened after it happens. Regardless of exactly how it’s triggered, during an El Nino warm water pools off the west coast of South America. This warm water doesn’t cool the atmosphere as easily, so the atmosphere warms.
However I should note that I don’t specialize in modelling (ENSO or otherwise) so take my opinions with a grain of salt. Like you were probably going to anyway. 😉
Odd.
ENSO variability and/or frequency and/or magnitude modeling getting better. Where? Exactly which model and verified by whom?
ENSO timing (frequency?) essentially (say what?) random. You mean the fakers actually don’t understand ‘natural variability’? All that guff about the models getting ENSO better is just guff then? Believe in the CAGW nonsense and the models and dumb scientists all make sense?
ENSO modeling incapable of interpreting/determining/understanding ENSO for prediction confidence.
Make up your mind, if there is one. Take your silly games back to skssy land and swap tales with them. Stop making things up and then slinging doubletalk out and telling us it’s science.
DS,
From your source:
“Based on a massive ensemble of
simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we
demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance
and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of
anthropogenic warming”
“Methods
We use the Bern2.5D Earth system model of intermediate complexity, which is
based on a zonally averaged dynamic ocean model. The ocean basins of the Atlantic,
Pacific, Indian and Southern oceans are resolved and are coupled to a zonally and
vertically averaged energy and moisture-balance model of the atmosphere
12,25
. The
prescribed historical natural and anthropogenic radiative forcings used to drive the
climate model are based on refs 16 and 15 and are identical to ref. 26”
Your source/link proves my point.
Dumb Scientist;
However I should note that I don’t specialize in modelling (ENSO or otherwise) so take my opinions with a grain of salt. Like you were probably going to anyway. 😉
Ah, so you figured out that I’m a cat playing with a mouse, and you are the mouse. Perhaps you’re not so dumb after all. At least you were bright enough to admit that you know squat about ENSO before you dug yourself any deeper. I sense Bob Tisdale lurking somewhere nearby, but he’ll probably save his ammunition for his next post which I suggest you pay close attention to so that you understand how hilariously wrong your explanation upthread is.
It’s just an analogy that tries to show how heat can slosh back and forth between atmosphere and ocean for dynamic reasons rather than purely static thermodynamic reasons.
What that shows is that you’ve never studied physics. Heat doesn’t slosh, it doesn’t even move. Energy moves, and something that contains heat can drive an energy flux by one of several mechanisms including the ones I mentioned earlier, conductance, evaporation, radiance. None of these are mechanisms by which heat “sloshes” and no such mechanism exists in known physics, in fact, the opposite. Your analogy demonstrates that either you don’t have a clue what you are talking about, or that you are using the analogy in a deliberate attempt to mislead others.
As far as I understand it, ENSO variability in models is getting better in the sense that the overall frequency of El Nino and La Nina events and their approximate magnitude is becoming realistic.
Well then your understanding is pretty weak since the models have gone from awful to almost-not-awful. But you already admitted that you don’t know anything about ENSO, so no point beating you over the head with that.
But the timing of El Nino and La Nina events is essentially random.
Ah. They’re completely random. As in can’t be predicted at all. Oh, I said I’s stop beating you over the head on your admitted lack of knowledge, sorry about that.
This warm water doesn’t cool the atmosphere as easily, so the atmosphere warms.
Ah. At least you got SOME physics right. Yes, the atmosphere would in theory cool more slowly if the ocean warmed. Except that wasn’t your claim. YOUR claim was that the oceans were absorbing the heat which would COME BACK into the atmosphere at a later date.. I challenged you to explain how that could be, how the heat could go from the oceans to the warmer atmosphere, all at once, or any other way, and you have skirted the question.
mods – think I blew the close bold tag at the end of my last comment, apologies.
Mike Maguire says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:35 pm
the climate model… Your source/link proves my point.
=====================
We have observations of solar/volcanic/etc. forcing, and observations of surface temperatures and observations of ocean heat content.
1. Can these observations be used to learn about the climate?
If you don’t think so, then science is impossible.
2. Is there any way to use these observations to learn about the climate without using equations or physics (i.e. a model)?
No. Science = models. Anyone who doesn’t like models doesn’t like science. The observations we have are useless without physics.
ATheoK says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:30 pm
ENSO variability and/or frequency and/or magnitude modeling getting better. Where? Exactly which model and verified by whom?
=========================
“… the models that do a good job simulating the observations (GFDL CM 2.1, MPI ECHAM5, and MRI CGCM 2.3.2A) are among those that have been identified as realistically reproducing ENSO [Lin, 2007].”
http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf
Dumb Scientist says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:44 pm
The models aren’t based upon either physics or observations. They’re based upon GIGO assumptions not in evidence, indeed contrary to all actual observations & physical evidence.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:44 pm
“Anyone who doesn’t like models doesn’t like science”
As an operational meteorologist the past 32 years, that uses/depends on numerous models every day, I know a few things about these models.
I’ll be happy to assist you in understanding them better but it appears that you’ve already decided you know more than me.
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 5:35 pm
Heat doesn’t slosh, it doesn’t even move. Energy moves, and something that contains heat can drive an energy flux by one of several mechanisms including the ones I mentioned earlier, conductance, evaporation, radiance.
=========================
Warm or cold water can slosh like in a measuring cup or in an ocean current. In either case its heat sloshes with it.
=========================
Yes, the atmosphere would in theory cool more slowly if the ocean warmed. Except that wasn’t your claim. YOUR claim was that the oceans were absorbing the heat which would COME BACK into the atmosphere at a later date.. I challenged you to explain how that could be, how the heat could go from the oceans to the warmer atmosphere, all at once, or any other way, and you have skirted the question.
=========================
On timescales relevant to the climate, the atmosphere isn’t cooling, it’s warming. Even in neutral ENSO years, the long-term trend is warming. But during an El Nino the atmosphere can’t dump heat into the ocean as quickly, so it warms even faster than the long-term trend.
Once visible sunlight is absorbed below the effective radiating level, its heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect. Recent La Ninas have been burying this heat in the deep Pacific. The Pacific heat reservoir is big but not infinite, so this heat can’t be stored perfectly forever.
If we choose to reduce CO2 emissions (and later reduce CO2 back to ~350ppm) so the Earth’s equilibrium surface temperature and sealevel return to its pre-industrial levels, that buried heat will have to pass through the surface to get to the effective radiating level and escape to space.
But that may never be possible if we keep ignoring the scientific community and treating our atmosphere like a free sewer. In that case some of that trapped heat won’t come back into the atmosphere for millenia because it will have converted ice at 0C to water at 0C or raised sea levels because warming saltwater makes it expand.
@Dumb Scientist
wbrozek said:
November 18, 2013 at 4:42 pm
& then
davidmhoffer said:
November 18, 2013 at 5:01 pm
_____
The way one gets a cool ocean to raise the temperature of the warmer air must be similar to the way the reported excess heat content in the upper ocean, i.e. higher temperature, gets transported into it’s hidey hole in the frigid deep ocean.
This process was pointed out in an earlier post here. It’s called immaculate convection. No one has been able to figure out exactly how it works yet, but I know many scientists are working hard to figure it out.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 18, 2013 at 6:31 pm
Which time scales are of interest to you? Consensus, settled “climate science” might be interested in the time scale since 1979, but that’s barely climate at all, arguable still just WX. For climate, centuries & millennia at a minimum are better. On the time scale of the past 3000 years, climate is cooling, quite dramatically & worrisomely. The Holocene shot its warmth wad fairly early on, before 5000 years ago. Since the Minoan Warm Period, if not since the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, temperature has been in a secular down trend, with counter-trend fluctuations of course, as during 1977-96. Very worrisome indeed, since cold kills & warmth lives.
milodonharlani says:
November 18, 2013 at 6:52 pm
Which time scales are of interest to you? Consensus, settled “climate science” might be interested in the time scale since 1979, but that’s barely climate at all, arguable still just WX. For climate, centuries & millennia at a minimum are better.
==========================
Depending on the variable in question, a sufficient signal-to-noise ratio can require many decades. For global surface temperatures, the WMO defines climate as a minimum 30 year record. Many mainstream attribution studies go back to 1950 to enhance the signal-to-noise ratio and to take advantage of early satellite and ocean observations. Temperatures before 1950 are less relevant to whether the atmosphere is currently warming or cooling because our radiative forcings skyrocketed after 1950.
==========================
On the time scale of the past 3000 years, climate is cooling, quite dramatically & worrisomely. The Holocene shot its warmth wad fairly early on, before 5000 years ago. Since the Minoan Warm Period, if not since the end of the Holocene Climatic Optimum, temperature has been in a secular down trend, with counter-trend fluctuations of course, as during 1977-96. Very worrisome indeed, since cold kills & warmth lives.
==========================
Marcott et al. 2013 showed a long-term 0.7°C cooling from 5500 to ~100 years before present. Modern records show a warming of ~0.7°C in the last ~100 years, which is about 50 times faster than the previous long-term trend.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/339/6124/1198.abstract
After scientists weighed the negatives and positives of our rapid warming, the National Academies said that “The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”
http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5energy-climate09.pdf
Dumb Scientist;
Once visible sunlight is absorbed below the effective radiating level, its heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect. Recent La Ninas have been burying this heat in the deep Pacific. The Pacific heat reservoir is big but not infinite, so this heat can’t be stored perfectly forever.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
One more time Dumby. How does the heat get from the ocean to the atmosphere which is warmer than the ocean?
So far you have:
1) Explained ENSO modeling and then admitted that you know little about it, which was evident from your explanation.
2) Claimed turbulent flow in a liquid as an analogy for energy flux, a construct with no basis in physics at all.
3. Proposed heat coming out of the ocean to haunt us, but remain incapable of explaining the physical mechanism by which this occurs other than mumbling something about warm water sloshing around and its heat content sloshing with it.
Are you for real? Or are you a false flag operation with deliberately trying to tarnish the reputation of warmist scientists?
If the latter, good job Dumby, good job.
@ David Hoffer — GREAT rebuttals above BOLD IS GREAT! #(:))
Wow, Dumb Scientist, you really ARE (if I can tell, ANYBODY can). You “multiply words without meaning,” i.e., you’re a fool.
“that buried heat” (you at 6:31pm today) — LOL — Analogously speaking (just a little “model,” heh): Just how did you bury that monster without disturbing the surface of the ground?
No body — no murder.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 18, 2013 at 7:06 pm
Of course the thoroughly corrupted National Academies said that. The urgent need is for more funding.
What rent-seekers find urgent doesn’t signify. All that matters is what the unmolested observations show. Which is that nothing at all out of the climatic ordinary has occurred since 1950. Not compared to the Holocene record, that of the Eemian or prior interglacials. Those are the time scales that signify. Decades are largely noise.
Can we call it the “pause nibbler”, then?
Dumb Scientist;
Once visible sunlight is absorbed below the effective radiating level, its heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is perhaps the most difficult part of the debate in my opinion. The fact that advocates from both sides of the debate have such a weak grasp of the physics. It may please you to know Dumby that I spend as much time quarreling with skeptics about how the greenhouse effect actually works as I do with warmists. It is entirely tragic that in order to have a discussion with you about your side of the argument, I first must apprise you of what your argument actually is. That single sentence of yours has so many errors in it that correcting them takes several paragraphs.
Once visible sunlight
All light, of which visible is only a small part.
is absorbed below the effective radiating level
light that is absorbed and re-radiated CHANGES the effective radiating level
its heat is trapped
The only heat that is trapped is the heat capacity of the ghg’s themselves which at just 400 ppm of the atmosphere is a rounding error form zero.
by the greenhouse effect
The energy flux is redistributed across the atmospheric column such that lower altitudes become warmer and higher altitudes become colder, but the average from surface to TOA remains, at equilibrium, exactly the same.
Please do learn the physics. Here’s some very good links to get you going:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 7:08 pm
How does the heat get from the ocean to the atmosphere which is warmer than the ocean? … something about warm water sloshing around and its heat content sloshing with it.
======================
The heat in the warm water that appears off the west coast of South America during an El Nino slows down the rate at which heat goes from the atmosphere to the ocean. Because we’ve reduced the rate at which heat leaves the atmosphere by raising the effective radiating level, the atmosphere warms.
Dumb Scientist;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sir, with all due respect, your original claim was that heat was being sequestered in the ocean, and could come back to haunt us. For the 4th time, how?
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 7:51 pm
Once visible sunlight
All light, of which visible is only a small part.
============================
The Sun is much brighter in visible light than in UV, which is mainly stopped by the ozone layer anyway. The Sun also emits little long-wave IR compared to the Earth. I mentioned visible light because the greenhouse effect is transparent to it but not to the IR that’s emitted after that visible light is absorbed below the effective radiating level.
============================
is absorbed below the effective radiating level
light that is absorbed and re-radiated CHANGES the effective radiating level
============================
The effective radiating level is primarily determined by the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Here’s a very in-depth explanation by Ray Pierrehumbert:
http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1907/how-co2-warms-the-climate-ray-pierrehumbert
============================
its heat is trapped
The only heat that is trapped is the heat capacity of the ghg’s themselves which at just 400 ppm of the atmosphere is a rounding error form zero.
============================
The heat capacity of GHGs are irrelevant. All that matters is the height of the effective radiating level, which is currently ~6km above the surface. If we actually rounded your “rounding error” to zero, the effective radiating level would descend to the surface, and temperatures would plunge to about -18C or even colder.
============================
by the greenhouse effect
The energy flux is redistributed across the atmospheric column such that lower altitudes become warmer and higher altitudes become colder, but the average from surface to TOA remains, at equilibrium, exactly the same.
============================
As Ray Pierrehumbert explained, the greenhouse effect is precisely the warming of altitudes below the effective radiating level, and cooling above it.
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 8:24 pm
Dumb Scientist;
Sir, with all due respect, your original claim was that heat was being sequestered in the ocean, and could come back to haunt us. For the 4th time, how?
============================
Some of the heat which had previously been sequestered in the ocean appears as warm surface water, which reduces the rate at which the atmosphere can dump heat into the ocean. When this happens, like in the 1998 El Nino, global temperatures spike.
Oops, I meant to say “global surface temperatures spike” in that last sentence.
Dumb Scientist;
As Ray Pierrehumbert explained, the greenhouse effect is precisely the warming of altitudes below the effective radiating level, and cooling above it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You finally got something right. You explained it wrong, I corrected you, and you reply with an explanation that matches mine. Seriously dude, you need to learn the physics and then discuss them. You’re just cutting and pasting responses to issues I raise, you clearly don’t understand them, else you wouldn’t be getting it wrong in one cut and paste and then right in another.
Read through posts by Bob Tisdale on this site, or download his book. Perhaps you will learn something about how El Ninos and global temps actually work.
Barry Cullen says:
November 18, 2013 at 6:50 pm
The way one gets a cool ocean to raise the temperature of the warmer air must be similar to the way the reported excess heat content in the upper ocean, i.e. higher temperature, gets transported into it’s hidey hole in the frigid deep ocean. This process was pointed out in an earlier post here. It’s called immaculate convection. No one has been able to figure out exactly how it works yet, but I know many scientists are working hard to figure it out.
=========================
If you’re interested in how wind interacts with the thermocline, you might find this explanation interesting. It also references El Nino events:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/09/what-ocean-heating-reveals-about-global-warming/
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 8:51 pm
You finally got something right. You explained it wrong, I corrected you, and you reply with an explanation that matches mine. Seriously dude, you need to learn the physics and then discuss them. You’re just cutting and pasting responses to issues I raise, you clearly don’t understand them, else you wouldn’t be getting it wrong in one cut and paste and then right in another.
=======================
Could you please quote the part where I “explained it wrong”? I’ve been trying to restrict my conversation to the warming beneath the effective radiating level, not the stratospheric cooling.
Dumb Scientist
Could you please quote the part where I “explained it wrong”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well bud, if you cannot find for yourself the place in our conversation where I corrected you and you responded with an explanation that matched mine, I really don’t see where repeating it again will help you.
Dumb Scientist: “The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable.”
Need for urgency or action are always each disputable in every case. Notwithstanding that the first thing necessary to close a sale is to impress people with the need for urgent action in the manner that lines the salesman’s pockets. Not a knock on salesman, it’s their job.
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 9:04 pm
Dumb Scientist
Could you please quote the part where I “explained it wrong”?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well bud, if you cannot find for yourself the place in our conversation where I corrected you and you responded with an explanation that matched mine, I really don’t see where repeating it again will help you.
===============
You seemed to agree when I said “the greenhouse effect is precisely the warming of altitudes below the effective radiating level, and cooling above it.”
But you were previously dissecting my sentence which said “Once visible sunlight is absorbed below the effective radiating level, its heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect.”
You called one wrong and the other right, but they’re actually compatible. I’ve always been talking about warming below the effective radiating level. Because that’s where people live.
Dumb “Scientist”;
You called one wrong and the other right, but they’re actually compatible.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You began with a physical analogy of turbulent flow of a liquid to heat transport that rises to the level of “that’s not right, that’s not even wrong”. Through this thread, you’ve conflated heat with energy flux on several occasions. You clearly don’t understand how heat, heat capacity, temperature and energy flux are all different constructs, nor do you understand how they are related to each other. I’ve provided links to several very well written articles that you clearly haven’t bothered to read. Until and unless you are conversant in these issues, you are just as hobbled in this conversation as are skeptics determined to prove that the greenhouse effect doesn’t exists by making the exact same errors but in reverse.
I can’t teach a whole first year radiative physics class in a blog post. I can leave you with this:
The effective black body temperature of earth before CO2 doubles is exactly the same as the effective black body temperature of earth after CO2 doubles. The temperature below the ERL rises, the temperature above declines, the average from surface to TOA doesn’t change. The only heat trapped is that absorbed by ghg molecules which have actively absorbed but not yet re-radiated photons. At only 400 ppm of the atmosphere, this amount is miniscule. The process however of absorbing and re-radiating photons at a higher concentration of ghg’s is what results in a higher ERL. It is this process which alters the energy flux at any given altitude which can then be interpreted as a change in temperature in which the energy flux (P) varies with the fourth power of T. These effects must then all be interpreted in the context of the lapse rate.
To understand where you have gone off the rails, you must understand the terms heat, heat capacity, energy flux and temperature and the mathematical relationships between them. You clearly don’t.
davidmhoffer says:
November 18, 2013 at 10:39 pm
Well bud, if you cannot find for yourself the place in our conversation where I corrected you and you responded with an explanation that matched mine, I really don’t see where repeating it again will help you.
=======================
It would’ve been much easier to just cut and paste the place where you corrected me instead of typing all that. Again, this:
“Once visible sunlight is absorbed below the effective radiating level, its heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect.”
matches this:
“the greenhouse effect is precisely the warming of altitudes below the effective radiating level, and cooling above it.”
If you’re saying that my second explanation matches yours, then so does the first.
Which means we agree that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the surface. Excellent.
Dumb Scientist says:
November 18, 2013 at 10:56 pm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And despite my earlier admonition, you continue to conflate heat with energy flux, and assume that because I agree that GHG’s result in a warmer surface, that I agree with your explanation of all else. You cry victory while demonstrating the complete failure to understand the terminology and implications that I warned you of.
Back to the topic of the thread.
I’ve been waiting for McIntyre to demolish Way. This is only the opening shot.
We can now say that official IPCC climate science as embodied by Stefan Rahmstorff endorses SkepticalScience and especially SkepticalScience’s Secret Forum members, John Cook and Robert Way; and that official IPCC climate science shares with Robert Way the idea that the time interval from 2005 to now is sufficient to prove the theory of CO2AGW correct, using a tiny percentage of the surface of the Earth with temperatures extrapolated to be there. They have actually been there but we’ll never know as we never measured them.
I think Dumb Scientist with his heat sloshing back and forth and Robert Way both have identified the phenomenon we normal thinking people call weather.
They might actually be the same person or members of the same secret forum.
DirkH says:
November 19, 2013 at 4:23 am
“They have actually been there”
I missed a word there;
“They may have actually been there”
Dumb Scientist-
“The Sun also emits little long-wave IR compared to the Earth.”
Wrong.
The sun, at 5800K, emits about 520 times more 10 um IR radiative flux than the Earth. That 10 um IR wavelength is at the peak of Earth’s emission spectrum.
Isn’t 2005 about when the UAH temperature starts to show a declining trend?
How do you use that to generate an increase?
Dumb Scientist, thanks for the link to Huber. I always want to learn more about how Big Climate Science determines the human attribution question. I read the paper. I think it’s not very persuasive. To be sure, it’s conclusions are strong. But I think they’re too strong for the methodology they use. They presume the Bern GCM is doing a good job. They don’t mention that the Bern GCM assumptions might be wrong or off. The large impacts of CO2 forcing are in the future, current increases relatively small. In the end, it’s assessment of human attribution seems to come down to their own “expert” judgement of many complex and confounding factors, and not from actual observations of the specific causality they claim.
I’ve long thought GCMs should stop treating atmospheric CO2 forcing as separate from water vapor forcing. Do others here agree with that? Of course, humidity is more variable than CO2. But there is always SOME humidity, and as a percentage, water vapor, especially in summer or in the tropics, over oceans, where the sun shines, humidity levels are high, and thus they greatly outweigh CO2 forcing. Water vapor gives upwelling Infrared energy the same 3D path to conversion into atmospheric heat (and here I mean heat, as measured by conduction, the collisions of mixed gas molecules with a thermometer) and the same path to convert from kinetic heat back into IR (we’ll ignoring for now, energy used in H2O state changes, which should average to something very close to zero).
You understand, I hope, that when you say MORE energy is going into the oceans because of CO2 forcing, you’re making a difficult sell even more difficult. Don’t you now have the new obligation of documenting a complex chain of custody for that energy? And until you CAN document it completely, you cannot possibly say our current 40 yr. warm period isn’t due to heat that went into the oceans a thousand years ago, a hundred years ago, or that current correlations with rising CO2 emissions are meaningful with regard to modern atmospheric temperatures. Does this make sense?
davidmhoffer says:
November 19, 2013 at 1:01 am
You finally got something right. You explained it wrong, I corrected you, and you reply with an explanation that matches mine. Seriously dude, you need to learn the physics and then discuss them. You’re just cutting and pasting responses to issues I raise, you clearly don’t understand them, else you wouldn’t be getting it wrong in one cut and paste and then right in another. … And despite my earlier admonition, you continue to conflate heat with energy flux, and assume that because I agree that GHG’s result in a warmer surface, that I agree with your explanation of all else. You cry victory while demonstrating the complete failure to understand the terminology and implications that I warned you of.
======================
I was just curious to see why you thought my first explanation was “wrong” while my second one was “right”. As I’ve shown, both of my explanations are compatible with reality, where adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the surface and cools the stratosphere.
At no point did I “cry victory” or assume that you agree with all else. I was just trying to find a tiny scrap of information we could agree about. Apparently in vain. Take it easy…
chris y says:
November 19, 2013 at 5:38 am
“The Sun also emits little long-wave IR compared to the Earth.”
Wrong. The sun, at 5800K, emits about 520 times more 10 um IR radiative flux than the Earth. That 10 um IR wavelength is at the peak of Earth’s emission spectrum.
======================
Wrong.
“This means, if we measure radiation with a wavelength of >4μm it is not from the sun, even if it is daytime (to a 96 – 99% accuracy).
And if we measure radiation with a wavelength of >13μm it is not from the sun, even if it is daytime (to greater than 99.9% accuracy).”
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/01/the-sun-and-max-planck-agree/
Mickey Reno says:
November 19, 2013 at 7:39 am
Of course, humidity is more variable than CO2.
=================================
Actually, in this comment I tried to explain that globally averaged relative humidity is essentially constant. It’s a feedback to other forcings like CO2, not a forcing itself.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/13/why-and-how-the-ipcc-demonized-co2-with-manufactured-information/#comment-1478929
=================================
… when you say MORE energy is going into the oceans because of CO2 forcing, you’re making a difficult sell even more difficult. Don’t you now have the new obligation of documenting a complex chain of custody for that energy? And until you CAN document it completely, you cannot possibly say our current 40 yr. warm period isn’t due to heat that went into the oceans a thousand years ago, a hundred years ago, or that current correlations with rising CO2 emissions are meaningful with regard to modern atmospheric temperatures. Does this make sense?
=================================
ARGO shows ocean heat content increasing down to 2000m.
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
If the heat on the surface is coming from the oceans, why are the oceans warming down to 2000m. If “our current 40 yr warm period is due to heat that went into the oceans a thousand years ago”, shouldn’t the oceans be cooling?
Dumb Scientist;
At no point did I “cry victory” or assume that you agree with all else. I was just trying to find a tiny scrap of information we could agree about.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Dumby: I’ve got a handful of sand here that weighs 3 oz. This proves that a handful of sand weighs 3 oz, that unicorns are pink, pigs can fly, and the pot at the end of the rainbow actually has lead in it.
DMH; Well, the sand weighs 3 oz….
Dumby: So we agree! The world is going to end!
Bob Tisdale has a new post up about this paper, I suggest you read it, though I expect it will be well over your head. I suggest also that you read his papers on ENSO.
davidmhoffer says:
November 19, 2013 at 9:58 am
we agree that adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the surface.
Dumby: So we agree! The world is going to end!
======================
Apparently I misspelled “The world is going to end!” as “adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the surface.”
At first I was curious why you insisted that my first explanation was wrong but my second was right:
“Once visible sunlight is absorbed below the effective radiating level, its heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect.”
“the greenhouse effect is precisely the warming of altitudes below the effective radiating level, and cooling above it.”
But after asking this question several times I’ve lost hope that this conversation will ever lead anywhere productive. Have a nice day.
Dumb Scientist says:
“adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the surface.”
It may. Or not. But be aware that there is no testable, verifiable scientific evidence confirming that belief. It is a conjecture at this point, nothing more.
Dumb Scientist;
But after asking this question several times I’ve lost hope that this conversation will ever lead anywhere productive. Have a nice day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I explained in rather great detail why the first statement is wrong. I explained several aspects of why it is wrong, none of which you understood, and I didn’t even address them all. I explained to you multiple times that you are conflating energy flux with heat and don’t seem to understand the difference. Then you ask the exact same question… yet again.
Your second statement summarizes the net effect of increasing ghg’s in the atmosphere. Your first statement attempts to explain the mechanism by which that effect is achieved and does so incorrectly on several points.
davidmhoffer says:
November 19, 2013 at 10:27 am
I explained in rather great detail why the first statement is wrong. I explained several aspects of why it is wrong, none of which you understood, and I didn’t even address them all. I explained to you multiple times that you are conflating energy flux with heat and don’t seem to understand the difference. Then you ask the exact same question… yet again.
Your second statement summarizes the net effect of increasing ghg’s in the atmosphere. Your first statement attempts to explain the mechanism by which that effect is achieved and does so incorrectly on several points.
=======================
How is my first statement different from the one offered by the National Academy of Sciences in chapter 3 of this video series?
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/
“If the heat on the surface is coming from the oceans, why are the oceans warming down to 2000m. If “our current 40 yr warm period is due to heat that went into the oceans a thousand years ago”, shouldn’t the oceans be cooling”
Can NOAA or any organization predict ENSO with any degree of precision (or imprecision). The answer is no; ergo, your theories and ideas are flawed. You really need to stop channeling Trenbeth. He began this rather ignorant narrative by suggesting (without any proof) that the “pause” was caused by missing heat hidden somewhere deep within the oceans.
dbstealey says:
November 19, 2013 at 10:23 am
“adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere warms the surface.”
It may. Or not. But be aware that there is no testable, verifiable scientific evidence confirming that belief. It is a conjecture at this point, nothing more.
==========================
Except for 420 million years of verifiable evidence from the ancient climate, and the fact that the average surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury despite the fact that Mercury is closer to the Sun and darker…
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v446/n7135/full/nature05699.html
http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS6/6EquilibriumTemp.html
Dumb Scientist;
How is my first statement different from the one offered by the National Academy of Sciences in chapter 3 of this video series?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>.
I see. You watched a TV show and tried to put it into your own words. Now you want me to watch the TV show for you and explain that to you. You’re no scientist, you don’t even have the basics. You know how to cut and paste and link to material that you believe supports your position, but you don’t actually understand any of it. You’ve made a proper fool of yourself from beginning to end, starting with proposing turbulent flow of a fluid in a bounded container as an analogy for energy transfer characteristics. If you don’t understand how badly that analogy fails, you’re basically trying to achieve the equivalent of teaching calculus to others before having mastered algebra yourself. Worse. Before having mastered arithmetic.
davidmhoffer says:
November 19, 2013 at 11:09 am
I see. You watched a TV show and tried to put it into your own words. Now you want me to watch the TV show for you and explain that to you. You’re no scientist, you don’t even have the basics. You know how to cut and paste and link to material that you believe supports your position, but you don’t actually understand any of it. You’ve made a proper fool of yourself from beginning to end, starting with proposing turbulent flow of a fluid in a bounded container as an analogy for energy transfer characteristics. If you don’t understand how badly that analogy fails, you’re basically trying to achieve the equivalent of teaching calculus to others before having mastered algebra yourself. Worse. Before having mastered arithmetic.
=======================================
Again, how is my first statement different from the one offered by the National Academy of Sciences in chapter 3 of this video series? It only takes 2 minutes to watch, and I didn’t see any difference between my statement and theirs.
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/
Dumb Scientist;
Again, how is my first statement different from the one offered by the National Academy of Sciences in chapter 3 of this video series?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. I actually took two minutes out of my day to watch that video. If you do not understand the differences between what you said and that video, then I cannot help you. I’ve provided links to a series of articles on this site by Ira Glickstein which go into considerable detail. If you understand them, then you will also understand why that video is basically correct, but for the purposes of this discussion in this thread, so over simplified as to be useless. You will also come to understand why your explanation of that video is incorrect. It will take several hours of your time to wade through those posts and understand them. Either you want to learn, in which case you will invest the time, or you want to lecture others about a subject in which you have no expertise.
davidmhoffer says:
November 19, 2013 at 11:42 am
If you do not understand the differences between what you said and that video, then I cannot help you.
=====================
I agree. Have a nice day.
@ Dumb “Scientist” — Who needs to watch? If the National Academy of Sciences is saying the same thing you are, then they are wrong.
Your reliance on the National Academy of Sciences is sadly mistaken.
FYI:
1. The National Academy of Sciences, because they rely on NOT fit-for-purpose, i.e., FAILED, models, often gets it wrong:
For example, see the Diffenbaugh paper linked in this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/03/us-tornado-count-so-low-that-its-invaded-the-legend/
2. The Holy National Academy of Sciences has also been known to l1e:
For just ONE example see:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/12/13/national-academy-of-sciences-appointee-caught-making-up-stuff-to-win-lawsuit-rico-lawsuit-follows/
Once someone is a known l1ar, you cannot take seriously ANYTHING he or she has to say.
*****************************
Your comments are quite comical. Who in the world do you think you are fooling? I really wonder. Do you hope to persuade the silent WUWT readers? The only ones who will believe you, you know, are those who do not need any persuading. Or, perhaps you are just doing your best to try to prevent silent Cult of Climastrology member readers from opening their minds to the truth told here. Well, if you are not a cynical l1ar, I know one person whom you are fooling and quite effectively.
If your nonsense were not eliciting EXCELLENT rebuttals from the Smart Scientists above, your posts would have nothing but entertainment value. Yes, yes, of course that’s something, lol.
Thanks for the chuckles.
Dumb scientist-
Your response does not address that fact that your original statement is wrong. You wrote- ““The Sun also emits little long-wave IR compared to the Earth.”
Your cut-n-paste response is discussing something different, and does not support your contention. It is indeed telling that either you can’t tell the difference, or you are deliberately obfuscating the issue.
Janice Moore says:
November 19, 2013 at 12:03 pm
@ Dumb “Scientist” — Who needs to watch? If the National Academy of Sciences is saying the same thing you are, then they are wrong.
================================
There’s no need to worry on that account. Chapter 3 of the NAS video says this:
“… as the Sun’s energy hits Earth, some of it is reflected back to space, but most of it is absorbed by land and oceans. This absorbed energy is then radiated upward from the surface of Earth in the form of heat. In the absence of greenhouse gases, this heat would simply escape to space and the planet’s average surface temperature would be well below freezing. But greenhouse gases absorb and redirect some of this energy downward, keeping heat near the surface of Earth. As concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, Earth’s natural greenhouse effect is amplified, like having a thicker blanket, and surface temperatures slowly rise. …”
http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/videos-multimedia/climate-change-lines-of-evidence-videos/
This is apparently “basically correct” even though anyone who wants a more in-depth explanation should watch the other video I linked:
http://thiniceclimate.org/blog/details/1907/how-co2-warms-the-climate-ray-pierrehumbert
However, I said this, which is apparently completely different from the above NAS quote, and completely wrong:
“Once visible sunlight is absorbed below the effective radiating level, its heat is trapped by the greenhouse effect.”
So there’s no reason to think the National Academy of Sciences is wrong, because they’re apparently not saying the same thing I am.
chris y says:
November 19, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Your response does not address that fact that your original statement is wrong. You wrote- ““The Sun also emits little long-wave IR compared to the Earth.”
Your cut-n-paste response is discussing something different, and does not support your contention. It is indeed telling that either you can’t tell the difference, or you are deliberately obfuscating the issue.
===========================
At Earth’s surface, if you detect a photon with wavelength over 4um, it’s very unlikely to be solar radiation, and very likely to be radiation from the Earth’s ground or atmosphere. That’s what I meant by saying “The Sun also emits little long-wave IR compared to the Earth”.
If you integrate over a “Dyson sphere” enclosing the Sun then the Sun’s total IR power will be much larger than Earth’s. But that’s not relevant to the Earth’s climate, because all that matters is the solar IR that hits Earth. Which, as I’ve shown, is much smaller than the IR that Earth emits.
Simple question. Does rising CO2 cause a temperature increase (AGW alarmists) or does a rising temperature cause a rise in CO2 (nature). See article (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658)
The recent 15-yr temp pause while CO2 has increased (even faster given the ramp up from China and India) would appear to provide a clue.
SMH says:
November 19, 2013 at 1:16 pm
Simple question. Does rising CO2 cause a temperature increase (AGW alarmists) or does a rising temperature cause a rise in CO2 (nature).
============================
On very long timescales (millenia or longer), warming the Earth causes the oceans to outgas CO2 through Henry’s Law because CO2 dissolves easier in colder water.
1. When this CO2 is released, it decreases ocean CO2 and doesn’t reduce atmospheric O2 because that CO2 comes out of the ocean as a single molecule.
2. Raising the sea surface temperature by 1C can release enough CO2 at current concentrations to increase atmospheric CO2 by perhaps ~20ppm.
But on shorter timescales like decades or centuries, adding CO2 warms the surface.
1. That CO2 is absorbed by the ocean, which means CO2 in the upper ocean increases, which has been observed. Because the CO2 we emit comes from combustion, it reduces atmospheric O2 levels, which has been observed.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-2-3.html
2. Raising the sea surface temperature by 1C can release enough CO2 at current concentrations to increase atmospheric CO2 by perhaps ~20ppm. Because the world has warmed by ~0.8C over the last 100 years while CO2 increased by ~100ppm, ocean outgassing can’t explain even a tiny fraction of the atmospheric CO2. (And again, that CO2 would’ve come from the oceans, so their CO2 should be decreasing, but it’s actually increasing because roughly half of our CO2 emissions are being sequestered in the oceans and terrestrial vegetation).
The paper you referenced, Humlum et al. 2013, somehow managed to ignore all these facts and many more, as explained in this response:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818113000908
JP says:
November 19, 2013 at 10:54 am
“If the heat on the surface is coming from the oceans, why are the oceans warming down to 2000m. If “our current 40 yr warm period is due to heat that went into the oceans a thousand years ago”, shouldn’t the oceans be cooling”
———
Can NOAA or any organization predict ENSO with any degree of precision (or imprecision). The answer is no; ergo, your theories and ideas are flawed. You really need to stop channeling Trenbeth. He began this rather ignorant narrative by suggesting (without any proof) that the “pause” was caused by missing heat hidden somewhere deep within the oceans.
========================
Being able to predict when El Ninos will happen in the future is irrelevant to measurements of the ocean’s energy content in the past. If “our current 40 yr warm period is due to heat that went into the oceans a thousand years ago”, shouldn’t the oceans be cooling?
Interesting.
Dumb Scientist has completely taken over the thread.
It looks like the warmists want to protect Way’s crackpot paper.
Skeptical Science has been known in the past to attack blog threads with their Spanish Inquisition tag team Rob Honeycutt + Dana Alinsky.
Way is a Skeptical Science secret forum collaborator.
It will be interesting to see whether other Way Crackpot science threads get attacked in an equivalent fashion.
DirkH says:
November 19, 2013 at 2:27 pm
Dumb Scientist has already raided Climate Audit.
Thanks to all who took the time to reply to posts by Dumb Scientist. In the process you provided valuable material for one who IS interested in the real science and real world data, versus Warmist propaganda and conjecture. You are part of the reason this site is so popular around the world and so informative about real climatological science.
Dumb Scientist, you immediately aroused my skepticism about your arguments by showing a lack of understanding about the ENSO. I am reading Bob Tisdale’s book and highly recommend you do the same. You lost me by quoting a single paper about temperature change, and making additional assertions with little supporting data (being polite here).
When you are being effectively shot at by an ever growing number of people, it is usually best to think about changing your position before you bleed to death. LOL
Normally, I do not post here because I am in learning mode and do not feel I will contribute much to the discussions.
DirkH says:
“Dumb Scientist has completely taken over the thread.”
Yes, and I wonder if ‘Dumb Scientist’ is like Jan P, who used to post 24/7 during his taxpayer-paid work day? Neither one of them has a clue about the subject; they just try to take over the thread.
DirkH;
Skeptical Science has been known in the past to attack blog threads with their
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, but they usually throw someone at the task who isn’t over their heads in the first sentence or two. Plus I notice that Dumb Scientist’s writing style and knowledge level seem to have evolved, leading me to suspect that s/he’s either getting coaching from someone knowledgeable in his later comments, or someone is writing them for him. Or her. Or it, as the case may be.
I was particularly amused by a later comment in which s/he tried to substitute what s/he meant for what s/he said. ‘Cuz you know, when the fate of the planet is at stake, precision apparently isn’t required.
Ernest Bush;
Normally, I do not post here because I am in learning mode and do not feel I will contribute much to the discussions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Questions asked with a genuine interest in learning always add to the discussion. Although I cannot guarantee that they will be answered, or that they will be answered correctly. I consider it a shame though that people who really want to learn something don’t ask more questions.
Dumb Scientist-
“That’s what I meant by saying “The Sun also emits little long-wave IR compared to the Earth”.”
What you wrote was wrong. Just admit it and move on.
chris y says:
November 19, 2013 at 4:52 pm
What you wrote was wrong. Just admit it and move on.
==============================
Sure, my initial phrasing was sloppy. I’m sorry for the confusion.
Well. Well. Well.
Dumb Scientist decided to try an irritate Steve McIntyre over at climateaudit.
When their circular reasoning repeats, trying to defend the hockey stick no less, It’s (I like that pronoun for them), proves to be unable to thread hijack Steve’s C&W review.
(Way also shows up to further discuss ‘some’ items and ignore others.)
Dumb Scientist says:
“Except for 420 million years of verifiable evidence from the ancient climate, and the fact that the average surface temperature of Venus is hotter than that of Mercury despite the fact that Mercury is closer to the Sun and…”&blah, blah, etc.
Mr. Dumb,
Do an archive search here, and find out how easily the Venus argument has been deconstructed. Because teaching a newbie some basic facts is more than I care to do right now …unless challenged by said noob.
You can go back 420 million years, or 420,000 years, or 420 years, and the result is still the same: ∆CO2 does not cause ∆temperature. Quite the opposite, in fact: changes in T cause changes in CO2 levels. That is an established scientific fact, and it destroys your conjecture. You could even look it up — or you can bask in your ignorance. But the rest of us know better… ‘Dumb Scientist’.
dbstealey says:
November 19, 2013 at 7:45 pm
Do an archive search here, and find out how easily the Venus argument has been deconstructed.
======================
I just wasted too much time talking about that point here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/06/public-relations-spin-doctors-deliberately-deceived-public-about-global-warming-and-climate-change/#comment-1467978
Near the end of the thread on November 9, 2013 at 8:11 am, I gave up because accusations of dishonesty are unproductive.
======================
You can go back 420 million years, or 420,000 years, or 420 years, and the result is still the same: ∆CO2 does not cause ∆temperature. Quite the opposite, in fact: changes in T cause changes in CO2 levels.
======================
At 1:55 pm today I explained that both happen, and how to distinguish between them:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/11/18/cowtan-and-ways-pausebuster-still-flat-compared-to-models/#comment-1479445
https://twitter.com/DumbSci/status/402559356501098496
Dumb,
Those are only assertions. They are not testable, verifiable scientific facts. And assertions are all the alarmist contingent has for an argument — that, and name-calling [denier, denialist, etc.]
So you ‘explained’ your assertions. So what? Witch doctors explain eclipses, too.
Here are a few scientific facts, based on empirical evidence:
On all time scales from years to hundreds of millennia, ∆T causes ∆CO2. Not vice versa.
Furthermore, the biosphere is currently starved of CO2. More CO2 is better. As we see, we are right at the low end of atmospheric CO2.
You are getting thumped in this debate for one simple reason: you are far from being up to speed on the subject. Take a few months off and read up on the subject. Start with the WUWT archives, keyword: CO2. Learn something before you pontificate.
Okay dbstealey, thanks for the advice. Keep it real.
Dumb Scientist,
I accept your climb-down. ☺
Polite disinterest, climb-down. Tomato, tomahto.
Hey where is R.Gates anyway? At least when he got pummeled this bad in a thread he had the good sense to shut up and slink away. Well except that time I got him wager with me on the outcome of a physics experiment and he lost. Gee, he didn’t slink away permanently because of that did he?
Dumb,
A climbdown is a climbdown.
davidmhoffer,
We can only hope.
The signal-to-noise ratio of this “conversation” is now indistinguishable from zero. Have a nice day.
Time to show the temperature trend since 1850 again.
tinyurl.com/kzmzd8y
Well, how about that. Every single warming trend matches the warm PDO and every single cooling trend matches the cool PDO. Now, what are the odds of that happening by accident?
This chart all by itself refutes CO2 as being the primary driver of climate. While CO2 may have a small residual effect, there is certainly nothing to fear.
However, note the last inflection point just happens to align with the sudden desire to invent some brand new warming by Cowtan/Way. It’s almost like they knew “the cause” needed some help.