Guest essay by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
– FOREWORD: WUWT readers probably remember when the now head of NASA GISS, Dr. Gavin Schmidt, could not stand to be seen on the same stage with Dr. Roy Spencer. Gavin decided to hide offstage while Dr. Spencer had finished his interview with John Stossel, rather than be subject to some tough questions Dr. Spencer might have posed in a debate with him on live TV. Gavin knew he’d lose, so he acted like a child on national TV and hid from Dr. Spencer offstage. It was one of the truly defining moments demonstrating the lack of integrity by mainstream climate scientists.
Now, Dr. Schmidt seems to be hiding from those inconvenient questions again, as Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. writes below. Dr. Schmidt also hides from me, having blocked WUWT on Twitter, so I’d appreciate it if some other WUWT readers would let him know of this publication. Dr. Schmidt is welcome to publish a rebuttal (or simply answer the questions) here if he wishes. He has my email. – Anthony Watts
Questions for Gavin Schmidt – Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York
by Dr. Roger Pielke Sr.
On March 18 2015, I submitted a set of questions to Gavin Schmidt, Director of NASA GISS, who initially seemed inclined to answer and ask some of his own. However, he now is not even replying to my e-mails. If he were a scientist without leadership responsibilities in the climate community, he certainly can choose to ignore my request. However, he is a Director of a major US federal laboratory and, as such, he (or his staff) should be responding to such requests. As of today’s date, he has not answered any of the questions.
By posting these questions, I am encouraging others to respond to the science issues I have raised, as well as be used in the future when Gavin is required to testify, such at a House and/or Senate committee. In your comments, please focus on the scientific issues and avoid any comments on motives, personal attacks etc.
My questions to Gavin follow:
Gavin,
Below are my questions that you agreed to look at in your tweet. I have copied to Judy as her weblog is an appropriate place to present this Q&A if she agrees. Judy might also want to edit and/or add to the questions.
Thank you for doing this. It shows that there is room for constructive debate and discussion on these issues.
1. There is a new paper on global albedo Stephens et al 2015
Click to access albedo2015.pdf
There is also a powerpoint talk on this at http://wind.mit.edu/~emanuel/Lorenz/Lorenz_Workshop_Talks/Stephens.pdf
Among the conclusions is that
“Climate models fail to reproduce the observed annual cycle in all components of the albedo with any realism, although they broadly capture the correct proportions of surface and atmospheric contributions to the TOA albedo. A high model bias of albedo has also persisted since the time of CMIP3,mostly during the boreal summer season. Perhaps more importantly, models fail to produce the same degree of interannual constraint on the albedo variability nor do they reproduce the same degree of hemispheric symmetry.”
Q: How do you respond to this critique of climate models with respect to the GISS model?
2. In 2005 Jim Hansen made the following statement regarding the GISS model [https://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/1116592hansen.pdf]
“The Willis et al. measured heat storage of 0.62 W/m2 refers to the decadal mean for the upper 750 m of the ocean. Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2 in the upper 750 m of the ocean. The decadal mean planetary energy imbalance, 0.75 W/m2 , includes heat storage in the deeper ocean and energy used to melt ice and warm the air and land. 0.85 W/m2 is the imbalance at the end of the decade.
Certainly the energy imbalance is less in earlier years, even negative, especially in years following large volcanic eruptions. Our analysis focused on the past decade because: (1) this is the period when it was predicted that, in the absence of a large volcanic eruption, the increasing greenhouse effect would cause the planetary energy imbalance and ocean heat storage to rise above the level of natural variability (Hansen et al., 1997), and (2) improved ocean temperature measurements and precise satellite altimetry yield an uncertainty in the ocean heat storage, ~15% of the observed value, smaller than that of earlier times when unsampled regions of the ocean created larger uncertainty.”
Q: What is the GISS update to this summary including the current estimates for the imbalance?
3. There are questions on the skill of the multi-decadal climate prediction models in terms of their use for regional impact studies for the coming decades. These models have been tested in hindcast runs. What are your answers to the following:
When run in hindcast (over the last few decades) where the forcings of added CO2 and other human inputs of greenhouse gases and aerosols are reasonably well known:
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting average observed regional climate statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional climate statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting observed regional extreme weather statistics?
Q: What is the quantitative skill of the multi-decadal climate projections with respect to predicting CHANGES in observed regional extreme weather statistics?
4. The issue of value-added by regional downscaling has been discussed in
Pielke Sr., R.A., and R.L. Wilby, 2012: Regional climate downscaling – what’s the point? Eos Forum, 93, No. 5, 52-53, doi:10.1029/2012EO050008. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/r-361.pdf
Among our conclusions is that
“…downscaling has practical value but with the very important caveat that it should be used for model sensitivity experiments and not as predictions….. It is therefore inappropriate to present [downscaling of multi-decadal climate projections] results to the impacts community as reflecting more than a subset of possible future climate risks.”
Q: Can regional dynamic and/or statistical downscaling be used to increase the prediction (projection) skill beyond that of available by interpolation to finer scales directly from the multi-decadal global climate models predictions?
5. There is considerable debate as to where heat has been going in recent years since the temperature increases at the surface and troposphere have flattened. On example of this discussion is in the post
Cause of hiatus found deep in the Atlantic Ocean
Q: Since it is claimed that a large fraction of the heat from human input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going into the deeper ocean over the last 10-15 years (as an attempt to explain the “hiatus”), why is the global average surface temperature trend still used as the primary metric to diagnose global warming?
6. The paper
Matsui, T., and R.A. Pielke Sr., 2006: Measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. Geophys. Res. Letts., 33, L11813, doi:10.1029/2006GL025974. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-312.pdf
writes the following
“This paper diagnoses the spatial mean and the spatial gradient of the aerosol radiative forcing in comparison with those of well-mixed green-house gases (GHG). Unlike GHG, aerosols have much greater spatial heterogeneity in their radiative forcing. We present a measurement-based estimation of the spatial gradient of aerosol radiative forcing. The NGoRF is introduced to represent the potential effect of the heterogeneous radiative forcing on the general circulation and regional climate.The heterogeneous diabatic heating can modulate the gradient in horizontal pressure field and atmospheric circulations, thus altering the regional climate.”
The paper
Mahmood, R., R.A. Pielke Sr., K. Hubbard, D. Niyogi, P. Dirmeyer, C. McAlpine, A. Carleton, R. Hale, S. Gameda, A. Beltrán-Przekurat, B. Baker, R. McNider, D. Legates, J. Shepherd, J. Du, P. Blanken, O. Frauenfeld, U. Nair, S. Fall, 2013: Land cover changes and their biogeophysical effects on climate. Int. J. Climatol., DOI: 10.1002/joc.3736. http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/r-374.pdf
…shows that such heterogeneous forcing also exists for land use/land cover change.
Q: What is the relative role of land use/land cover change relative as well as added aerosols with respect to added CO2 and other greenhouse gases in affecting local and regional climate and changes in regional climate statistics?
6. In our post at Climate Etc
An alternative metric to assess global warming – http://judithcurry.com/2014/04/28/an-alternative-metric-to-assess-global-warming/
we wrote
“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. Among our findings is the difficulty of reconciling the three terms.”
Q: Please provide your best estimate for the terms.
7. The book
DISASTERS AND CLIMATE CHANGE Rightful Place of Science Series
Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes by Roger Pielke, Jr.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/publications/special/dcc/index.html
discusses the role of changes in climate in recent decades on disasters.
Q: What is your conclusion on the role of changes in extreme weather as they affect society during the last several decades?
Roger Sr.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Q#1: Since the GCMs “broadly capture the correct proportion”, and they are “global” climate models, I don’t see where the problem is. Don’t use tools for purposes they were not intended.
Q#3: Don’t use tools …
Q#4: Oh, it sound like regional downscaling is being proposed as an adapter attached to the GCM tool, to enable the GCM’s to be used for regional predictions, and you want to know if that will work. Sounds like a good idea, try it out and let us know how it works.
Q#5: It’s interesting, when El Nino heat washes up on Andean shores, I always see a tongue of warm water pushed downwards into the deeper ocean. Since the world temperature maps also show warm water pushed against African shores, is this a significant source of deep-ocean heat sequester? Do the math.
Q#6: Hey, you want our GCM’s to now accurately model aerosols and regional land use/land cover changes, first send more money. Lots of money. We’ll get back to you.
Q#7: Our GCM code is available. Run it yourself, or talk to my boss. Maybe NASA will re-prioritize my research goals.
Shorter Gavin: I don’t punch down. Anything regional is downpunching. Good luck with your regional climate modeling research.
Schmidt, Hansen, Mann, why do they all look like brothers?
Are they cloned?
They are from the same brotherhood – the Climatist Brotherhood.
I like that!
Brother Hansen, Brother Schmidt and Brother Mann.
They probably share a secret handshake also.
https://youtu.be/ddM7kJ9xQfA
Gold bricks and mooches and schnorrers tend to have similar facial expressions.
I thought it was just ME that saw the resemblance….!
2009: Gavin S. predicts a cooling trend “will be never talked about again”
“The current El Nino is forecast to get stronger, probably pushing global temperatures even higher next year, scientists say. NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt predicts 2010 may break a record, so a cooling trend “will be never talked about again.”
https://twitter.com/tan123/status/572001084631203840
there must also be included the general question ( not in this particular RFC ).
If out of nothing comes something ( it just does ) where did emotional feeling come from ?
Somebody who considers such a ridiculous question valid might consider all is not what it might appear even after extensive scrutiny. The Church might step in saying ” yes, yes, this is what we have been trying to say. All of us have seen the life behind everything, seen an all encompassing intelligence powering all in life ”
Such a person might think this intelligence would laugh off attempts to alter the equilibrium it desires, here.
just saying, like.
Dr. Pielke,
Your R-321 paper (2007 JGR) deserves the highest praise, wide readership and multiple citations.
http://pielkeclimatesci.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/r-321.pdf
No other single publication has had greater influence on my scientific understanding of “climate change”
Thank you.
BTW, I also “discovered” the planetary surface boundry later in 1984 as a grad student looking at CO2 flux rates of photosynthesizing C4 plant leaves. I had no understanding that atmospheric CO2 could change so radically near the surface on a daily or hourly rate. Native soils can be powerful sources of CO2.
Rapidly growing young wheat plants will rapidly clear the air column above them of CO2, even at today’s elevated levels. The drawdown of CO2 by vegetation might be one reason why the gas is relatively “well mixed”, as it flows to areas recently devoid of it. Of course it stays aloft longer than water vapor anyway, which condenses more readily at ambient temperatures on earth.
Two big questions alarmists will not answer:
1) How much Co2 can the whole ocean absorb?
2) How much heat can the whole ocean absorb?
The correct answer to #1 is: “The deep oceans have 37,000 PgC of carbon. If the atmosphere goes to 560ppm, then by Henry’s law, the deep oceans will be able to absorb, even with some rise in temperature, and applying the Revelle ratio (to account for balance of Co2 and carbonate) an additional 2856 PgC. Currently, the oceans are absorbing 2.5PgC a year, so this is slow process, but it means that eventually, most of the 10 PgC that we emit will get pulled into the oceans.”
For #2: “The heat capacity of the ocean is about 50 times that of the atmosphere. The last 20 years of ocean heat content addition added a mere 0.03C on average to the ocean temperatures. As surface temperatures rise, the oceans have a moderating impact on further rises, and will do so in cyclical ways.”
Once you own up to the deep ocean taking up heat, and you own up to the massive heat capacity of the deep ocean, being on average a few km deep, even a mathematician like Gavin can see it leads to long lead times and lower warming trends. When you add to that the fact that oceans are taking up 2.5 PgC of carbon per year, and growing as the Co2 ppm count goes up, you have to conclude that oceans provide a significant moderating effect on CO2 addition and on temperature. The oceans are one more reasons why climate change is more moderate than alarmists claim.
hello, for somebody like me who is not used to envisioning really big numbers is it possible to redraw that statement with sort sort of physical reference ?
does one PgC means 1 billion tonne ?
that is a really big number to try to evaluate.
how much space would something like that have to have ?
Yes. A petagram (Pg) of carbon. One Pg = 10^15 grams or one billion (10^9) metric tonnes (a million grams or 1000 Kg per tonne).
1 Seawater dissolved inorganic carbon is near 2200 micromolar. CO2 in air is 400 micromolar. Neither is saturated. Neither is in passive equilibrium. The biological component to the global biogeochemical carbon cycle has be operating for about a billion years. Biology is notorious for it’s non-linear properties.
2 The total heat capacity of the global ocean is 1000 times that of the global atmosphere. This has been calculated many times from many sources. I’ve checked that number years ago and found the same.
At the ocean-atmosphere interface, seawater has a density 800 times air. Seawater has a specific heat capacity 4 times air. So the ocean has 3200 times the heat capacity of the air in contact with the surface.
For example, one kilojoule of energy absorbed by air at the surface will result in a one degree temperature increase. One kilojoule of energy absorbed by the ocean just below that air will increase the seawater temperature by 1/3200 of one degree. BTW, the “kelvin” is the current name for what is commonly called the “degree” of the Celsius scale according to SI.
I strongly suspect that future history researchers will date the changeover in the climate catastrophe conflict from a situation where the the skeptics were the ones under constant attack and on the defensive to the Climate Catastrophists being the ones under attack and on the increasingly desperate defensive sometime from about late 2013 to through 2014.
Come gather waved doubters ever a rangin’
For the tides, they are a changin.
====================
Gavin is behind the wheel of a coach running down a mountain road, and the brakes have gone.
The passengers are frantic and he shouts ‘don’t worry, its going to be ok’
One of his passengers is a driver and asks – ‘exactly HOW is this going to be ok ?’
no answer
To be fair – Gavin’s probably a bit preoccupied right now
Chris Schoneveld
May 19, 2015 at 2:24 pm
Unfortunately, the pause is about to end with a potentially strong El Nino looming.
========================
I have a serious question for you, no disrespect intended. If, as you say the projected El Nino (although we have been in El Nino conditions for about 6 months as it is) ‘ends’ the ‘hiatus’ (I assume by that you mean that ‘Global Average Temps’ are going to rise to a level that wipes out the current no increase trend), then are you saying that El Nino is primarily caused by increasing CO2 in the atmosphere? It seems to me that, unless you contend exactly that, any increase in global average temperature attributed to El Nino conditions will not offer any support to the current contention (or ‘settled science’ if you will) that CO2 is a ‘thermostat’ that controls global temperatures. So what if El Nino raises temps? It isn’t CO2 that is causing it, is it.
Today (May 19, 2015) Gavin Schmidt tweeted
“If you’d like to have my opinion on anything work-related tho, try asking nicely & being patient (depending on how involved the Q is)”
I cannot let this misconception on patience and courtesy go unaddressed. I have presented below the e-mail exchange over the last more than half a year with Gavin on this. As you will see, I have asked “nicely”.
My e-mail September 2 2014 9/2/14
Gavin
Will you be replying to my requests on Twitter?
These are:
1. Jim Hansen wrote
“Our simulated 1993-2003 heat storage rate was 0.6 W/m2
in the upper 750 m of the ocean.”
What was it 2003-2014 in the GISS model?
2. How do you define “global warming”?
I was motivated on these questions as Judy wrote on her weblog that you seem open to such exchange of perspectives. Indeed, as Director of GISS, this would seem to be an appropriate aspect of your job. If I do not ask, others certainly will.
Sincerely
Roger
Gavin’s Reply September 2 2014
Roger, Thank you for your questions. Unfortunately, the pressures on my time have increased substantially in recent months, and that means that computing model diagnostics to order is a slightly lower priority than other tasks. I have requested the data that were shown in Miller et al (2014 – which I recommend you read), but when this will arrive, and when I will have time to do this processing, is unknown. If you are in a rush I suggest you access the CMIP5 database directly. Note that there is an ensemble of 36 simulations that need to be processed to answer your question.
Cheers,
Gavin
My Response September 2 2014
Gavin. Thank you for the reply. There is no rush for the update. It is just that Jim outlined the issue so clearly, an update would be really valuable for everyone.
On your definition of global warming, I really would like to see where you are on this. I am hoping this is one issue you and I are now on the same page with.
I think we also have the same conclusion on the lack of added skill using statistical and dynamic downscaling of multi-decadal climate projections.
Regards
Roger
March 18th 2015 I sent Gavin the list of questions that are posted on WUWT.
Gavin’s Response March 18 2015
Roger, thanks. I’ll answer what it makes sense to answer, but I am not the spokesperson for the entire community and for things I don’t work on directly, you are as capable as finding references as I. I will of course have some questions for you and I’ll expect a similar level of response.
Gavin
My Response
Gavin
Thank you for the prompt response, A two way Q&A is a good idea.
While you are not a spokesman, you are a Director of an
internationally well respected institute that is a leader in climate
science. It certainly would be fine for you to assign to those in GISS
if you feel the specific question is outside your area of expertise.
This would be appropriate. But answering them does seem to be in your
role as Director.
I provided references only to frame the questions. Referring me to
references as the answer itself (i.e. telling me to just go find it
there) is not effective at constructive discussion.
As I wrote, this exchange between you and I could start to build
bridges among others in this very polarized subject.
Follow up to Gavin April 1 2015
Hi Gavin
Please give us an update on our Q&A.
Roger Sr.
Gavin’s Response April 1 2015
haven’t had a chance to get to it. sorry.
My Response
Thanks for letting us know. We look forward to your response when you can.
Roger
My Follow up on April 18 2015
Hi Gavin
Are you going to answer the questions I presented? One at a time would be fine. Judy will post and a constructive open discussion can then occur.
Roger Sr
My Second Follow up April 21 2015
Gavin. Are you going to reply at all? I know you are busy but my request for you to answer the questions I asked is quite reasonable.
Soon we will just post the questions to you and let you decide if you want to engage in that forum. I anticipate at some point, in your position as Director of GISS, you will need to answer them.
Roger Sr
Gavin’s Response April 22 2015
Roger, I really have no idea why you think I’m somehow obliged as a function of my job to do work for you. This is a very odd attitude to have. I said I was busy, and I am. I will try and get around to discussing issues that appear interesting to me, when I get a chance. In the meantime, have patience.
gavin
My Follow Up April 22 2015
Gavin. I am asking for your views on several subjects. If I were a reporter for the Economist or other major publication , would you still relegate my queries to such a low priority? Or if you were asked these questions as part of testimony at a House or Senate committee?
You are not just a scientific colleague but have a senior federal government position. This does obligate you to respond even if you delegate to your staff.
You asked for patience. Okay – please tell me when you will be able to answer the questions. At some point, we will just post the questions to you. I prefer, however, a constructive discussion between us which can than be posted.
My Second Follow Up May 13 2015
Gavin. Are you ever going to respond to my questions? Just give me a straight answer either way. If you are going to answer, when could I expect them?
Roger Sr
There was no further e-mails from Gavin
Mr. Schmidt has proven his incompetence out of his own mouth above.
If he has to “work” for months at coming up with those answers, i.e., if he cannot discover those answers within one month, then:
1. He has no idea how to schedule/delegate work to staff; and or
2. He is abysmally ignorant (as to some of the Q’s –In several cases, you are simply asking him to prove what he has already claimed he knows) of:
a. what he should know or (easily be able to discover) to be qualified for his position;
and
b. of what he should know per his publicly asserted level of competence (Schmidt is regularly making assertions with a high level of confidence which assume knowledge which would answer several of your questions).
*****************************
Nothing you can do but what you have done. If it were a court case, you could file a Motion to Compel and get a judge to help you (motivation: costs of motion and “terms”…. ultimately, pay, or go to jail ….).
So much for professional courtesy, huh?
GOOD FOR YOU, DR. PIELKE, TO TRY SO HARD!
That reminded me of the last time I broke up with girlfriend via email.
Thanks for posting this Dr Pielke. The dismissive tone of Schmidt’s responses is revealing. He and his “community” seem to have enfolded themselves into a cocoon. They reveal themselves when communicating their message to the social media (Tweets) or as MSM press releases. And do so only because these communication methods restrict any proper dialogue. They are likened to the “ship of fools” who were determined to go and trap themselves within folds of Antartica ice.
Fack is, his flush is busted. Does he blush?
========
Nine months patience, now is term. Call in midwives, use forceps, come, this must be furious.
==========
So he has plenty of time to update the “realclimate” website and to tweet his opinions about climate but NO time for science questions from his peers. Got it.
The 36 simulations do not, actually, form an ensemble. Not even in climate science:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_ensemble
Two or more different models do not constitute a statistical ensemble of any sort whose behavior can be expected to converge in a sane way to something in a meaningful relationship to the target. A grand ensemble in climate statistics involves two or more levels of ensemble averaging in a single model. The “Multi-model Ensemble” (MME) to which Gavin refers is not a statistical ensemble of any sensible sort, by which I mean specifically one cannot expect the superaverages over the grand ensemble averages or perturbed parameter ensemble averages of many models to have any meaningful relation to the quantities they are supposed to represent.
Worse, the members of the MME are not independent! Seven of the 36 are contributed by NASA GISS, for example, so GISS alone constitutes and controls over 1/6 of the total. There is far more sharing of code, parameters, assumptions between the models than not. It isn’t rationally possible to even estimate how many “independent” “sample” “models” there are in CMIP5 (they quail at the task in Chapter 9 of AR5, after pointing out the problem in a single paragraph where no policy maker will ever read it or understand it or question it).
Assertions of “confidence” in climate statistics are confidence as in confidence game, not confidence as in statistically defensible results derived from e.g. the central limit theorem.
rgb
DR Pielke….You are flogging a dead horse…. Schmidt and NASA GISS temperatures LOL
Perhaps Gavin will opt to address these questions as a series of posts at RC. That would make sense (for him) and he’ll have his supporting backers there and censoring moderation ability too.
It’s not a Goddard-worthy GISS any more. Now it’s SchISS.
Why has Gav not been prosecuted for blogging on the public dime?
I strongly recommend that anyone who thinks that GISS data is in any way credible to go to Raw data NSCD, Steven Goddards or Paul Homewood or J Mahorasy or Freeman Dyson’s or Einstein’s web sites. To be even talking to these criminals ( Schmidt, Hansen ect) is an offence to society and science
And it’s good to see a Pielke back in the blog saddle again….Scientist UP!
Mike
We vent, we feel better — NOTHING CHANGES!! Why blog???
Well…. because:
1. Worst case scenario — helps science realists cope with ev1l.
2. Best case scenario — prevents ev1l.
IOW: Can’t hurt. Highly likely to help!
Apparently Dr Schmidt has responded via Twitter, perhaps that should be posted.
Hmmm… twitter wouldn’t be my first choice for in-depth answers to the seven questions. How far did he get on question number one?
Odd how much time Gavin seems to make/find to keep his twitter feed rolling daily….but not for responding to polite requests for dialog over the past two months. Priorities I guess!
It is now becoming increasingly clear that it is the oceans that are driving temperatures.
The warmists want an El Nino tjhis year aheead of Paris because it will push temperatures higher, and assist there shrills that this is the warmest year on record etc.
The problem is that the warmists know that an El Nino is a natural event (not driven by CO2) and unless 2015 is a Super El Nino like 1998 (where there was a release of energy and a step change in temperature that has still to dissipate), the effect will be short lived and a La Nina will follow and the ‘pause’ will immediately lengthen in the following year such that by the end of 2016/early 2017 the ‘pause’ will be over 20 years (on some data sets considerably longer than that).
If the energy imbalance is going into the oceans then CAGW is over since ocean response is slow and energy that has been sequestered to the deep ocean is dilluted by the vast volume of the deep ocean itself, and it cannot quickly re-surface still less in a concentrated form. .Because the deep ocean is very cold, if it was to re-surface not every 100years (as is the typical rate of the thermohaline circulation) but say re-surface every 700 years it would actually serve to cool SST and would push the planet towards an ice age. It is because notwithtanding some 4 billion years of solar heating (and the effects of any of DWLWIR) that the ocean has an average temperature of about 4 degrees that the planet has ice ages. if the average temperature of the ocean was the same as the average surface temperature, ice extent would be minimal.
The further problem for the argument that the energy imbalance is hiding in the deep ocean is
a) Given that it is now claimed “that a large fraction of the heat from human input of CO2 and other greenhouse gases has been going into the deeper ocean over the last 10-15 years (as an attempt to explain the “hiatus”)”, why was the same proportion of heat from human input of C02 and other greenhouse gases not going into the oceans in earlier years (ie., in the years when the land based thermometer record was showing a warming trend)?
b) What has changed about the physics of the atmosphere/ocean interaction, or the properties of CO2 which has caused the heat fron CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) to no longer remain in the atmosphere, but instead to make their way into the deeper ocean?
c) Why are we no longer seeing the same planetary response to the effects of CO2 as were seen say during the period 1979 to 1997?
Warmists have yet to answer those questions.
There is also a further problem with the physics of DWLWIR and the absorption characterics of the oceans (which is a selective surface) that renders it difficult to explain the physical processes involved whereby additional energy imbalance from increased DWLWIR from increased greenhouse gases could find its way down to the deep ocean given that over 60% of all DWLWIR is fully absorbed within just 3 microns of the ocean and that concentrated energy (if capable of performing sensible worl in the environ in which it finds itself0 would drive copious evaporation unless the energy could be sequestered to depth (and thereby dissipated and by volume) at a rate quicker than the energy so absorbed in the top few microns would drive evaporation.
The issue is what mechanisms can sequester this energy to depth? It does not appear that it can be by conduction since at the very top of the ocean (the top millimetres) the energy flux is upwards and as far as we know energy cannot flow/swim against the direction of the flux.
It is unlikely to be by ocean overturning which is a slow mechanical process and may also be diurnal.
It is unlikely to be by physical mixing caused by wind and waves since this too is a slow mechanical process and there are times and large areas where wind conditions/sea state is no more than BF3 (or below) where there is relatively little in the way of strong wind and wave action.
There is a problem with the concept that DWLWIR can in any meaningful way heat the oceans, and at most it would appear that it merely goes to fuel evaporation (thereby cooling the very top of the ocean), but as I say from a theoretical point there is too much energy being absorbed in the top few microns and an expalanation is required as to how this energy can be quickly dissipated to volume before driving evaporation.
Fortunately for us solar energy is absorbed in a volume of water extenting several metres (not just a few microns). If solar wa absorbed in the same manner as LWIR, the oceans would have boiled off (from the top down) long ago.
Gavin Schmidt and his politically driven alarmist colleagues have managed with great skill to firmly positioned themselves between a rock and a hard place. If they adjust their models to represent reality the people will cry out look we told you there is no need for alarm. If they do nothing the people will ridicule and out them as extremists. Unless global temps. starting increasing again, and rapidly, their employers will save face by firing them for incompetence. I like to imagine these Climate Scientists on their knees very day praying that Mother Gaia will change her ways.
I like to imagine them as the prophets of Baal…
“How long will you waver between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.” But the people said nothing.
Then … the prophets of Baal … called on the name of Baal from morning till noon. “O Baal, answer us!” they shouted. But there was no response … And they danced around the altar …
At noon Elijah began to taunt them. “Shout louder!” he said … they shouted louder and slashed themselves with swords and spears … and they continued their frantic prophesying until the time for the evening sacrifice. But there was no response, … .
I. Kings 18:21-46.
“‘Shout louder,'” O prophets of CO2!
lololololol
“‘Shout louder,’” O prophets of CO2! Be assured that you will be rewarded in measure greatly exceeding your obfuscation of veracity; beyond yet a thousand times a thousand the number of dark dollars received for your whoredom.
All that noise…a distracting diversion. Now we have trumpets heard in the skies…probably CO2
History is littered with examples where the alarmists refuse to answer questions of relevance. I’m reminded of the following:
Questions posed to Bert Bolin by Andrei Illarionov
Moscow World Climate Change Conference
October 1, 2003
1. What was the actual level of carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere in 1980-2000?
* The forecast is alarming. What is the basis for it?
2. What are the parameters of the model of temperature anomalies? And how are they derived? Why are there such fluctuations in anthropogenic forcing observations?
3. Can we explain the temperature variation by CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the past 1000 years?
4. Can we explain the temperature variation by CO2 concentration in the atmosphere in the past 140 years?
5. Can we explain the temperature variation by CO2 emissions of anthropogenic character?
6. Other factors explaining temperature variation: Volcanic activity? Whether to include in the model?
7. Other factors explaining temperature variation: Long-term cycles? Whether to include in the model?
8. Is the modern “global warming” unique in the last 5,000 years?
9. Can we achieve the Kyoto Protocol targets, providing the share of Annex 1 countries (including Russia, not including USA and Australia) in the world’s CO2 emissions is rapidly falling?
10. And finally: How much does it cost?
Courtesy of:
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2011/05/16/the-ipcc-the-uk-and-climate-censorship/
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/climate-policy/politics/illarionov2003-8.php
Gavin Schmidt gave a lecture at the Brookhaven Lab April 28 2015 titled
“What Are Climate Models Good For?”
Mirrored on youtube:
[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qh5Kg9swEYA&w=560&h=315%5D
Durring the lecture/ evangelistic-recruitment message I don’t believe he answers none of Roger Pielke Sr.’s pertinent questions, however it does reveal Gavin Schmidt’s reasoning for his activism.To me, his lecture is notable for his picture of polar bears, revealing statements and the selections of data he presents, and the conspicuous lack of certain data. Of course he claims the models show great skill, and “greater than five sigma” signal for AGW (30:30-32:45). It is followed by a Q&A which is also revealing.
There is a recruitment call for volunteer tutoring on “How to talk to the public about climate change”(48:00-48:35)
Enjoy.
The mantra from all government agencies will soon become, “Although global temperatures have not been increasing since 2000, and may well decrease in the future, our sophisticated modelling indicates that temperatures are in fact increasing at an alarming rate, and will continue to do so forever”.
The mantra from denialists is: Although global temperatures have been increasing steadily since 2000, our sophisticated BS talk will repeat they have not”.
Wojciech Peszko
You write this nonsense
The empirical fact recognised by realists is:
Global warming stopped nearly two decades ago.
Box 9.2 on page 769 of Chapter 9 of IPCC the AR5 Working Group 1 (i.e. the most recent IPCC so-called science report) is titled
Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
A “hiatus” is a stop and global mean surface temperature (GMST) over the previous 15 years (now 18 years) was not (and is not) discernibly different from zero at 95% confidence.
The Box says
And this from the IPCC that is tasked to provide information supportive of the anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW) hypothesis.
Richard
@richardscourtney
You write this ‘A “hiatus” is a [climate global warming] stop.’ Then you write somthing that denies it: “15-year-long hiatus periods are common” which mean you’re not talking about climate but weather.
Wojciech Peszko
It seems that problems stem from you lacking ability to read.
The IPCC AR5 was published 3 years ago. So, as I wrote
18 years, Wojciech,18 years. Can you grasp that now?
And if you don’t understand that, then there is this from ‘The State of the Climate’ in 2008 by the US Government’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf
The models “rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more”.
The models “rule out” a hiatus of “15 yr or more”. Can you grasp that?
And you say global warming having stopped is weather and is not climate.
OK, Wojciech, I grasp that: you say warming is climate and no warming is weather.
Global warming stopped nearly two decades ago.
It is bummer that facts refute your superstitious belief in global warming, and I sympathise with your distress that reality is providing those facts.
Richard
Didn’t the Grand Poohbahs of Climatastrophy once proclaim that anthropogenic forcing by CO2 had rendered natural variation impotent in stemming the incessantly increasing rise in global temperature?
But now, even with rate-increasing annual adjustments in the historical record, temperature rise is less than the 1901-1950 average.
Hmm. So much for the “unprecedented rise.”
Speaking of adjustments, 1999 NASA/GISS data showed that USA climate cooled from 1921 through 1999, but 2014 NASA/GISS data showed that USA climate warmed during the same period.
Makes sense. The idea that global warming would fail to affect a rapidly-industrializing area of increasing population over a 79-year span with a record el Nino near the end is absurd.
All pretty harmless questions. Certainly inferior ones for use in Congressional hearings etc. Try questions in Layman’s English in future, they get to the heart of matter much more effectively with less space for BS manoeuvres in response.
Difficult skill that. Few people have it.
You do what you have to, to get the money and public life is always about the money. This is just typical of life on our planet. Sucks to be us.
Is it possible to ask realclimate for this to be published on there?
I am pretty sure Gavin is a regular contributer there.
Gavin Schmidt has his career dependent on a discredited theory. He is a mathematician and a master manipulator of land based temperature record data he controls by biased adjustments dropping rural stations and maximizing urban heat island effect for political reasons. The RSS satellite record is deviating from Galvin’s adjusted record lowering past temperatures, only so long his charade can continue, deviations grow with each month and year. He should be discredited by honest scientific method for his blatant manipulating data for sake of true science and honest temperature data, discharged from GISS NASA is overdue, odd NASA ignores its own satellites for temperature and official record repeatedly adjusted by this mathematician off original data down for past to show an increase in temperatures which is not reality, but guess excuse for NASA budget. It is blatantly obvious what has been done manipulating the temperature record. I hope for Congressional Hearings where Galvin can explain his biased “adjustments” and increased deviation from satellite data, what a scam, reminds me of Enron and WorldCom, please cut off funding for USDA climatic change hubs, Europe sorry you cannot but high wattage hair dryers or vacuums, sorry for 1 in 7 people on earth who cannot afford electricity and they just want to hike energy prices to fix a nonexistent problem. NASA and NOAA should not be political propaganda machines, science for science is better for public funds, but the $29 billion a year wasted in US for this issue is a waste, most not science but rather propaganda to educate BS. Lucky we did not follow crazy climatologists in 70s who said on best scientific advice we should melt polar ice caps with nukes to prevent global cooling. Newspapers and press just catch bylines on nonexistent crisis to get a quick read, public believes BS without looking into data, e.g. world sea ice at a record high today at a bit less than a million square km above average since 79 despite in past theory it was all supposed to be melted. There is theory and reality, hopefully the later will dominate as opposed to religion and belief, and propaganda as Galvin spews. If you are wrong should admit as opposed to manipulating numbers or temperature record as defense, $ billions wasted which is a shame.