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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
@ur momisugly 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
@ur momisugly 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?