Guest essay by David Archibald
President Obama didn’t start the war on coal. That war had its origins back in the 1970s. The nuclear industry joined the fray in 1982 with the establishment of the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC) at Oak Ridge, part of the U.S. Department of Energy. The CDIAC collects data on carbon dioxide concentrations around the planet and conducts experiments with pre-ordained outcomes. By that I mean growing plants in elevated carbon dioxide concentrations to study the effects of that on growth rates but at the same time adding ozone so that the growth would be stunted. Not everything the CDIAC is completely useless though.
The pause in global temperature rise might cause a loss of faith in the global warming faithfully so the priests of the movement are required to provide an explanation. The explanation they have come up with is that the missing heat is hiding in the depth of the Altantic Ocean and will one day leap out at us when we are least expecting it. This is an illustration of the heat gone AWOL:
The illustration shows heat plunging into the depths as far as 1,500 metres. The oceans don’t work like that. Most of the heat energy of sunlight is absorbed in the first few centimetres of the ocean’s surface. Waves mix the water near the surface layer such that the temperature may be relatively uniform in the top 100 metres. Below that there is almost no mixing and no vertical movement of water.
This is where the CDIAC comes in handy. Following is a map of CDIAC voyages in the Atlantic Ocean:
And this is the temperature profile of A16 from almost 60°S to near Iceland, a distance of over 13,000 km.:
It shows how the Antarctic is a giant refrigerator for the planet. The dark blue in the bottom left is cold water below 1°C plunges near Antarctica and ponds in the deep ocean right up to the equator. The CDIAC voyages also record carbon dioxide data of course. This is the carbon dioxide and total alkalinity profile for A20, to the west of the A16 voyage:
Once again, most variation is near surface while the bulk of the ocean is effectively homogenous.
We didn’t need the CDIAC data to debunk claims of missing heat in the ocean depths but it is good to have empirical data. The CDIAC is well past its use-by date though. Apart from the unnecessary cost, it was conceived for a dark purpose under President Carter. The United States will need all the energy it can get soon enough.
David Archibald, a Visiting Fellow at the Institute of World Politics in Washington, D.C., is the author of Twilight of Abundance: Why Life in the 21st Century Will Be Nasty, Brutish, and Short (Regnery, 2014).
Reference:
Is Atlantic holding Earth’s missing heat?
Eli Kintisch
Armchair detectives might call it the case of Earth’s missing heat: Why have average global surface air temperatures remained essentially steady since 2000, even as greenhouse gases have continued to accumulate in the atmosphere? The suspects include changes in atmospheric water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas, or the noxious sunshade of haze emanating from factories. Others believe the culprit is the mighty Pacific Ocean, which has been sending vast slugs of cold bottom water to the surface. But two fresh investigations finger a new suspect: the Atlantic Ocean. One study, in this issue of Science, presents sea temperature data implying that most of the missing heat has been stored deep in the Atlantic. The other, published online in Nature Climate Change, suggests a warming Atlantic is abetting the Pacific by driving wind patterns that help that ocean cool the atmosphere. But some climate specialists remain skeptical. In a third recent paper, also published online in Nature Climate Change, other researchers argue that the Pacific remains the kingpin. One reason some scientists remain convinced the Pacific is behind the hiatus is a measured speedup in trade winds that drive a massive upwelling of cold water in the eastern Pacific. But there, too, the Atlantic may be responsible, modeling experiments suggest. A consensus about what has put global warming on pause may be years away, but one scientist says the recent papers confirm that Earth’s warming has continued during the hiatus, at least in the ocean depths, if not in the air.
richardscourtney
August 25, 2014 at 1:55 pm
..
“If you can dispute it then please do.”
The AGW hypothesis does not depend on any climate model. The hypothesis stands apart from the computer models, as it was formulated over 100 years ago when there were no computer models in existence.
@richard_courtney
Robert Pielke Sr., et al:
“This aspect of the climate system is why it has been proposed to use the changes in the ocean heat content to diagnose the global radiative imbalance, as summarized in Pielke (2003, 2008). In this weblog post, we take advantage of this natural space and time integrator of global warming and cooling.
“We present this alternate tool to assess the magnitude of global warming based on assessing the magnitudes of the annual global average radiative imbalance, and the annual global average radiative forcing and feedbacks.”
“An alternative metric to assess global warming,”
by Roger A. Pielke Sr., Richard T. McNider, and John Christy
April 28, 2014
http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/28/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/
Friends:
I see that there are attempts to deflect this thread with assertions that Svante Arrhenius first formulated the AGW hypothesis. We can ignore that red herring because he did not.
His pertinent paper can be seen and read here. As the accompanying comment observes
There, the red herring is hooked, landed and disposed so there is no valid reason to continue with any mention of it.
Richard
Edward Richardson
August 25, 2014 at 7:48 am
“Half of that is attributed to the thermal expansion of the water in the oceans.”
Whatever it is attributed to, the trends haven’t changed in many decades. Thus, the attribution for the warming plateau to a recent diversion of heat energy to the oceans fails.
richardscourtney says:
“Svante Arrhenius did not have computer models when he first formulated the AGW hypothesis.”
Svante’s paper outlined his model in detail.
I can’t think of a concept or calculation in science (outside of mathematics) that doesn’t rely on a model. Can you?
SonicsGuy:
Thankyou for your post at August 25, 2014 at 2:08 pm which admits you were wrong when you pretended that “ocean heat content” and “energy imbalance” are the metrics of global warming.
Your new post admits that as recently as April 28, 2014 Roger A. Pielke Sr., Richard T. McNider, and John Christy wrote
A recently proposed “alternate tool” presented on a blog is interesting but is NOT a metric which has replaced global average surface temperature anomaly (GASTA).
Richard
SonicsGuy
August 25, 2014 at 2:00 pm
“But he did have a model. He just did all the calculations by hand.”
Indeed. A model is a mathematical paradigm which quantifies the relationships between cause and effect. Arrhenius’ construct for projecting temperature rise based on CO2 concentration is a model.
It is an incorrect model but, per Geo Box, they all are, though some are useful. This one has not proved to be very useful for anything but diverting precious resources into a snipe hunt.
Arrhenius’s model is wrong for being non-falsifiable. Box’s aphorism is wrong for having counter examples;
SonicsGuy:
At August 25, 2014 at 2:18 pm you apply the classic warmunist troll trick of misquotation by claiming I wrote
I DID NOT WRITE THAT! At http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/24/missing-heat-in-the-atlantic-it-doesnt-work-like-that/#comment-1717505 I wrote
Richard
Repeat of post sans link which is held up in moderation queue:
Edward Richardson
August 25, 2014 at 7:48 am
“Half of that is attributed to the thermal expansion of the water in the oceans.”
Whatever it is attributed to, the trends haven’t changed in many decades. Thus, the attribution for the warming plateau to a recent diversion of heat energy to the oceans fails.
Edward Richardson:
I see that at August 25, 2014 at 2:06 pm you continue to try to distract this thread with your red herring.
I discussed climate models which predict “committed warming”. That is pertinent to this thread.
I did not raise the irrelevance of calculations made a century ago: you are waving that red herring. It is stinking fish. Please take it elsewhere.
Richard
Moderator: A couple of posts (same one really) are being held in the queue for reasons unknown and seemingly unfathomable.
REPLY: You know, I can’t be “on” 24/7, I have a life, I occasionally have to eat, go to the bathroom, spend time with my family, and do work. I don’t see any posts held in moderation – Anthony
Richard – the only reason “anthropogenic” is in the AGW is because we happen to be the ones responsible for the increasing concentrations of persistent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
This has been measured. The CDIAC tracks all that, as do other groups worldwide. Included in the list of persistent gases are CFCs, which don’t even exist in nature.
The greenhouse effect is well understood, proven, and has been observed on Earth as well as on Venus, Mars and Titan. It’s physics. At Earth’s distance from the sun, gases like water vapor, CO2, methane and others intercept infrared photons, absorb energy from them, then re-emit that energy. This slows the path of those photons out to space.
It’s been understood since Fourier in the 1820s that something in the atmosphere was keeping the Earth far above the expected temperature of -15C. That little “something” is greenhouse gas.
Increasing the amount of greenhouse gas increases the energy content of the climate system by lowering the temperature of energy escaping at the top of the atmosphere. The system can only reach a new equilibrium by increasing the temperature of the atmosphere.
Disprove the greenhouse effect and you will have proved that we’ve got nothing to worry about. Except declining ocean pH.
Then you’ll have to come up with a valid, comprehensive theory to explain the following measured or observed changes in Earth’s climate system:
1 – cooling stratosphere
2 – reduction in Arctic ice
3 – greatest effect of warming in high latitudes (showing it’s not insolation driven).
4 – increasing frequency of intense precipitation events due to greater water-carrying capacity of a warmer atmosphere.
Arrhenius didn’t worry about AGW because the amount of fossil fuels consumed back then were miniscule, and nobody was forseeing the exponential growth in consumption.
b fagan:
Your conclusion that the greenhouse effect is proven cannot be reached by the scientific method of investigation. Under this method observational data may disprove a conclusion but may not prove one.
Terry, you said “b fagan:
Your conclusion that the greenhouse effect is proven cannot be reached by the scientific method of investigation. Under this method observational data may disprove a conclusion but may not prove one.”
Correct. I’ll state it more properly. “The greenhouse effect, or more specifically, the ability of certain atmospheric gases to capture and release photons in the infrared range of the spectrum, slowing the escape of heat back to space, is a hypothesis that has been examined and tested frequently since first postulated well over a century ago and has never been falsified.”
Anyone seriously attempting to say that increasing the concentrations of persistent greenhouse gases, as we have been measuring, without it producing a significant result on the planetary energy budget needs to provide an alternate hypothesis that is more robust than the 100+ year old greenhouse hypothesis.
b fagan:
I’m thinking of the model that has the equilibrium climate sensitivity as its proportionality constant. As a basis for policy making, this model has a number of shortcomings. One is that it conveys no information to a policy maker about the outcomes from his or her policy decisions. A model with this characteristic is useless for the purpose of making pollicy.
SonicsGuy August 24, 2014 at 7:30 pm
Matt G says:
“The data down to 2000 m is not reliable at all before Argos so I don’t trust it.”
What are the data’s uncertainties?
————————————————————————————————————————————-
This link below shows the number of temperature profiles per month below 1000m.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/godas_parameter.pl
This how the number compares with down to 250m
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/godas_parameter.pl
The ocean has 71% surface area of the planet with land 29%.
Notice the oceans should have 2.45 times more temperature profiles, just to have an equal coverage of observations. Surface land instrument temperature data sets use around 7,000 depending on the organisation for 29% surface area. These are still not accurate enough/poor coverage and just to keep this standard would need around 17000 for ocean coverage. Less than 50 temperature profiles for the deep ocean (below 1000m) until the 1990’s is awful coverage. That is less than one profile per 2% surface ocean coverage.
That’s why anybody that treats so little profiles with any confidence is a fool.
Sorry the above links don’t work, these should now.
For below 1000m
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/mnth_gif/xy_data/temp.prof.global.90s-90n.1000-5000m.gif
For depth down to 250m
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/mnth_gif/xy_data/temp.prof.global.90s-90n.0-250m.gif
Bart
August 25, 2014 at 2:36 pm
“the trends haven’t changed in many decades. ”
From 1870 to 2004, global average sea levels rose a 1.46 mm per year.
From 1950 to 2009, the annual rise in sea level of 1.7 ± 0.3 mm per year,
From 1993 to 2009, satellites are showing a rise of 3.3 ± 0.4 mm per year.
…
I’d say there’s a slight acceleration.
Bart
August 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm
“You know, I can’t be “on” 24/7…”
Nobody appreciates you and your service here more than I. Please do not ever think I am ever being even slightly critical. If a thousand thank you’s will help assuage your irritation, please accept them from me.
I thought you had said you would like a note labelled moderator when something went awry, I assumed to help calibrate the new sp*m filter. I got three messages saying innocuous posts were being held for moderation. That’s all.
Bart Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 25, 2014 at 2:53 pm
That one, too.
b fagan:
It would require writing a book to correct all the errors and misunderstandings in your post at August 25, 2014 at 2:39 pm. It begins saying
CFCs have a potential effect but it is very small. At issue is the cause and the effect of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.
Please provide cogent evidence that human activity is “responsible for the increasing concentrations of” CO2 in the atmosphere. I don’t know what is causing it but I want to know. We modeled the rise as being either natural or anthropogenic and in a variety of ways.
ref. Rorsch A, Courtney RS & Thoenes D, ‘The Interaction of Climate Change and the Carbon Dioxide Cycle’ E&E v16no2 (2005).
Then there is the effect of the rise in CO2. Allow me to introduce you to the scientific Null Hypothesis.
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
The Null Hypothesis is a fundamental scientific principle and forms the basis of all scientific understanding, investigation and interpretation. Indeed, it is the basic principle of experimental procedure where an input to a system is altered to discern a change: if the system is not observed to respond to the alteration then it has to be assumed the system did not respond to the alteration.
In the case of climate science there is a hypothesis that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs, notably CO2) in the air will increase global temperature. There are good reasons to suppose this hypothesis may be true, but the Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed the GHG changes have no effect unless and until increased GHGs are observed to increase global temperature. That is what the scientific method decrees. It does not matter how certain some people may be that the hypothesis is right because observation of reality (i.e. empiricism) trumps all opinions.
Please note that the Null Hypothesis is a hypothesis which exists to be refuted by empirical observation. It is a rejection of the scientific method to assert that one can “choose” any subjective Null Hypothesis one likes. There is only one Null Hypothesis: i.e. it has to be assumed a system has not changed unless it is observed that the system has changed.
However, deciding a method which would discern a change may require a detailed statistical specification.
In the case of global climate no unprecedented climate behaviours are observed so the Null Hypothesis decrees that the climate system has not changed.
Importantly, an effect may be real but not overcome the Null Hypothesis because it is too trivial for the effect to be observable. Human activities have some effect on global temperature for several reasons. An example of an anthropogenic effect on global temperature is the urban heat island (UHI). Cities are warmer than the land around them, so cities cause some warming. But the temperature rise from cities is too small to be detected when averaged over the entire surface of the planet, although this global warming from cities can be estimated by measuring the warming of all cities and their areas.
Clearly, the Null Hypothesis decrees that UHI is not affecting global temperature although there are good reasons to think UHI has some effect. Similarly, it is very probable that AGW from GHG emissions are too trivial to have observable effects.
The feedbacks in the climate system are negative and, therefore, any effect of increased CO2 will be probably too small to discern because natural climate variability is much, much larger. This concurs with the empirically determined values of low climate sensitivity.
Empirical – n.b. not model-derived – determinations indicate climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2 equivalent. This is indicated by the studies of
Idso from surface measurements
http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/Idso_CR_1998.pdf
and Lindzen & Choi from ERBE satellite data
http://www.drroyspencer.com/Lindzen-and-Choi-GRL-2009.pdf
and Gregory from balloon radiosonde data
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/OLR&NGF_June2011.pdf
Indeed, because climate sensitivity is less than 1.0°C for a doubling of CO2 equivalent, it is physically impossible for the man-made global warming to be large enough to be detected (just as the global warming from UHI is too small to be detected). If something exists but is too small to be detected then it only has an abstract existence; it does not have a discernible existence that has effects (observation of the effects would be its detection).
To date there are no discernible effects of AGW. Hence, the Null Hypothesis decrees that AGW does not affect global climate to a discernible degree. That is the ONLY scientific conclusion possible at present.
I can also dispute every other of your assertions that your post presents as being facts.
Richard
Richard, your reply to me was full of words, but little that bears reply. We have measures of fossil fuel extraction – recorded in the books of the energy companies. We know how much CO2 is produced per unit of fuel burned. We have recordings since 1958 of increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, declining pH of ocean surface waters as they absorb CO2, and the amounts add up to what we see dug from the ground, when you allow for increased plant growth absorbing a bit of the remainder.
We have measurements of declining concentrations of atmospheric oxygen which are consistent with the amount of carbon burned in our fossil fuels.
And the greenhouse effect is still real.
richardscourtney
August 25, 2014 at 2:59 pm
1) “unless there is evidence of a change.”
2) ” no unprecedented climate behaviors ”
First of all, there is evidence of a change, namely a rise of 0.8 degrees C in the past 100 years. Secondly the Null hypothesis does not include the word “UNPRECEDENTED.” Your adding that word is evidence that you are not being honest about what the actual Null Hypothesis is.
Edward Richardson:
re your post at August 25, 2014 at 2:52 pm that says
No, I would say you have chosen different lengths of time. It is a common warmunist disinformation trick and the IPCC has used it to pretend that global warming is accelerating.
Richard
richardscourtney
August 25, 2014 at 3:08 pm
“you have chosen different lengths of time”
…
Just pointing out to you the slope of the line. You know, that old “dy/dx” first derivative. It’s increasing.
Edward Richardson:
Your post at August 25, 2014 at 3:07 pm is desperate. It says in total
No, there is no evidence of a change to the climate system.
Variations of 0.8 degrees C have happened before in the holocene. Indeed, the importance of the MBH hockey Stick was that it pretended to show the Medieval Warm Period was not hotter than now, but that graph is now the most discredited graph in the history of science.
Your objection to the word “unprecedented” is ridiculous. If there is nothing unprecedented then there is no evidence of a change to the behaviour of the system.
Your words prove beyond any possibility of reasonable doubt that you do not know what “honesty” is.
Richard
Edward Richardson:
Please desist from your trolling. Your red herring at August 25, 2014 at 3:14 pm is your second attempt to distract this thread from its subject.
Richard
richardscourtney
August 25, 2014 at 3:16 pm
..
First you say, ” there is no evidence of a change”
Then you say “Variations of 0.8 degrees C have happened before.”
You need to make up your mind. Either 0.8 degrees is a change, or it is not a change. Which is it?
Also, the word “unprecedented” is not a part of the Null Hypothesis.
Edward Richardson:
I see that having failed with the red herring ploy at August 25, 2014 at 3:22 pm you attempt to troll the thread with the obtuse ploy
GASTA varies within limits. If it varies within those limits then the system is not observed to change its behaviour.
You need to stop pretending to be an idiot. A variation of 0.8 degrees is NOT evidence that the system has changed because such variations have happened before.
And I stated the Null Hypothesis. Your pretense that you cannot read is also deliberately obtuse. I wrote
The Null Hypothesis says it must be assumed a system has not experienced a change unless there is evidence of a change.
I shall ignore any further attempts by you to present the obtuse ploy.
Richard