The Source Of The Heat

Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach

Over at Dr. Judith Curry’s always excellent blog, she has a post headlined by a question, viz:

What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?

Let me start by saying that this is a horribly phrased question. Consider a parallel question:

What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket?

I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question—temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.

For example, regarding the climate system, every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation. As a result, the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil … where is Dr. Judith’s mysterious “source of heat” supposedly driving that change?

Here’s another example. Over say the last 50 years the incremental temperature rise at the Poles has been generally greater than in the tropics. This reduces the equatorial-polar “delta-T” (∆T), the temperature difference between the two. But wind speed is generally some function of ∆T, so less ∆T means less wind. And evaporation is linearly proportional to the wind speed, so this would tend to amplify warming from whatever cause by reducing evaporation … and where is the “source of heat” for that wind-related amplification of warming?

With that as a preface, let me start by giving you an overview of our understanding of the historical climate. Be forewarned, it’s depressing. Here we go.

Nobody knows why the Roman times were generally warmer than times prior to that, or why it generally cooled after the Roman Era.

Nobody knows why it then warmed again up to the Medieval period.

Nobody knows why the warmer Medieval times were followed by fairly rapid cooling to the Little Ice Age of the 1600s-1700s.

There’s more. Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t turn into a real ice age. Certainly, the orbital parameters were there for us to slip into a glacial period … but it didn’t happen. Why? We don’t know.

Instead, and again for reasons nobody understands, rather than continuing to cool, the planet started warming, at about a half a degree per century for the last few centuries, right up to the present.

(Please note that “nobody knows” doesn’t mean “nobody claims to know”. I can find ten scientists tomorrow who all claim they know why the Little Ice Age came about … the problem is, they all have different answers. But the truth is … nobody knows.)

And as far as we can tell … none of those gradual temperature changes were caused by variations in CO2.

Given all of that, it is a giant and unsupported leap to think that we can say either that a) there’s been an increase in some kind of heat source, or b) whatever might have caused that increase in the heat source, it has in turn been the cause of the recent years of incremental warming.

I gotta say, the hubris of climate scientists is beyond all bounds. Despite not being able to explain the past, they claim that they can predict the future out a hundred years … pull the other leg, it has bells on it …

But heck, let’s pretend for a moment that in some mysterious fashion we’ve been able to establish firmly that the change in surface temperature is indeed caused by a corresponding increase in radiation absorbed by the surface. Here’s a graph of the anomalies in total absorbed radiation at the surface (longwave plus shortwave, blue) along with the total absorbed solar radiation anomaly (shortwave only, red).

CERES surface and surface solar anomalies

I’m sure that you can see the problem. The change in just absorbed solar radiation alone is more than enough to explain the entire change in total absorbed radiation at the surface …

So per this particular individual analysis of the CERES data, the source of energy for the incremental change in temperature is … the sun. No need to invoke CO2 or GHGs of any kind. The sun alone provided enough additional heat to completely explain the total increase in absorbed radiation.

Now, does this show that the sun is indeed the cause of the gradual warming? ABSOLUTELY NOT. There are plenty of forces at play in even this restricted subset of climate variables, and the fact that a couple of them line up does NOT mean that one is causing the other.

Part of the problem is our childlike insistence that there is some kind of simple cause-and-effect going on in the climate. I describe it instead as a “circular chain of effects”. Here’s an example. The sun warms the ocean. The warmer ocean generates more and earlier daily clouds. The clouds cut down the sun. Less sun makes the ocean cooler. The cooler ocean produces fewer and later daily clouds … you see the circle, you see the problem.

There’s an insightful Sufi teaching story about this question. Hussein asked the Mulla Nasruddin:

“Well, then, how do you account for cause and effect?”

Nasruddin pointed to a passing procession carrying a coffin and said:

“They are taking a hanged man, convicted of killing another man, from the gallows to the grave. Is this the result of his stealing the knife from the butcher, or of using the knife to murder his enemy, or of being caught by the police, or of his being prosecuted by the magistrate, or of being found guilty by the judge, or of being hanged at the gallows? Which event can you point to and say ‘This is the moment in time that caused him to meet his fate’?”

But then, as Nasruddin was wont to say, “Only a fool or a child looks for both cause and effect in the same story”

Anyhow, in answer to Dr. Judith’s question, I fear that all we can say with certainty is …“Nobody knows”.

My best to everyone on a lovely winter night,

w.

PS—As usual, I politely request that when you comment you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so we can all understand what you are discussing. Please note that although the request is polite, if you ignore it, I may not be … I’m tired of picking random unsourced uncited unreferenced spitballs off the wall.

PPS—In addition to the always-fascinating scientific give-and-take here, let me invite you all to contribute to the ongoing discussions of a more political and personal nature at my own blog,  Skating Under The Ice, or to follow me on Twitter, @WEschenbach.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Tom Halla

There is a great deal of assertions in climate science made with great assurance, and damn little real evidence.

Tom Halla

Are, not is. My grammar goes away sometimes.

John M. Ware

Start: “There are a great many assertions . . .”

Gary

No, you had it right. The “great deal” is a collective subject that calls for a singular verb. “Assertions” in the prepositional phrase isn’t the subject. I’m seeing this error all over the place in recent years, most commonly by British writers, but now picked up by Americans.

James Francisco

Tom, I just hate it when I’m wrong about being wrong.

Mike Schlamby

You were right the first time. A great deal is only one deal, as attested by the indefinite article “a”, so “is” is correct.

Santa Baby

Like UNFCCC? It’s like claiming that lung cancer causes smoking? An ideology that wants us on the road to serfdom?

Alan Tomalty

I know 2 people that I grew up with that were heavy smokers and both died from lung cancer. Sure there are a lot of Churchills around but I wouldnt bet my life on it just to obtain the pleasure of smoking.

Adam Gallon

Smoking is undeniably a cause of lung cancer. Not the only one, but not all smokers die of lung cancer. The epidemiological evidence is there, as is the evidence of carcinogenic chemicals in cigarette smoke.

I’m afraid you guys missed Santa’s sarcasm. I believe St Nick is repeating Michael Crichton’s example of reverse logic, i.e. “wet streets cause rain”.

Smoking is NOT undeniably the cause of lung cancer because non-smokers also get lung cancer. Epidemiology is the worst of sciences… if it died out tomorrow we’d probably be better off.

Sheri

If 10% shows causality, yes. Sarcasm or no. It’s the psuedoscience we are drowning in—like asbestos. There’s money be taxed and sued for. IF you accept that tobacco causes lung cancer, you MUST accept the pseudoscience of global warming. Their statistical evidence is at least equal. Humans will accept any pseudoscience that agrees with their world view. Even the skeptics do this on a regular basis.
(Note: My father died of lung cancer. I am not about to let any emotion cloud my scientific understanding. Whether or not the smoking or weed spray or bad luck had anything to do with this, SCIENCE DOES NOT KNOW. I had tongue cancer with NO RISK FACTORS whatsoever. Who should I blame and scream and shout about the injustice to? Listerine? Australia says so. It’s all mumbo-jumbo and about blame and money, not science.)

Simon

Bob Johnston
Are you saying smoking does not cause lung cancer? If so, you are wrong.
If you are saying it is not the only cause, then that is true…. but that doesn’t mean smoking does not seriously increase your chances of getting lung cancer.

eck

Simon, smoking does NOT necessarily cause lung cancer. An uncle smoked heavily his whole life (82 yrs), died of something else. It might. But I would say that it greatly increases the risk. We probably agree.

Santa Baby

Icecore studies tell us that temperature drives/leads CO2 with 800 +/-200 years. So if UNFCCC claim that CO2 is driving temperature ITS like claiming that lung cancer caused smoking or wet streets caused rain etc..

Simon – I’m saying we don’t know if smoking causing lung cancer. Perhaps lighting matches is the cause, perhaps yellow fingers is the cause, perhaps stinky clothes are the cause… the point is we don’t know because it’s unethical to do a randomized controlled trial on the subject. We can’t do that trial because it’s already thought to be dangerous to smoke so without a RCT all we have is epidemiological evidence and epidemiological evidence is sh#t.
It’s the same thing with manmade global warming – there’s only one earth and it’s definitely multi-variant so it’s impossible to run a an RCT on the effects of just added atmospheric CO2 and its effects on temperature… once again all we’re left with is spotty observational data and once again, observational data is sh#t.
A lot of hypotheses actually go unstudied – they sound reasonable on the surface and become standard practice and nobody ever tests the idea. An example of this is stenting a patient with blocked arteries. It sounds good in theory but we’re finding out now that there’s no benefit to stenting in people who aren’t having a heart attack. Think of how many billions are wasted and how many people have side effects (like death) because a stent was inserted with no actual benefit. It’s much the same for statins – unless you’ve actually had a heart attack and are a male under 50 there’s no proven benefit and in that small class of people the benefit is teeny tiny and could easily be dismissed as drug company shenanigans. And it’s never been shown in females for a statin to be effective against heart attacks yet doctors routinely subject their patients to all the known side effects of a statin for no possible gain.
I guess my point is we believe a lot of things that sound logical but in practice isn’t really the case. Yes, I believe smoking contributes to the cause of lung cancer but people who don’t smoke also get lung cancer it’s obviously not the entire story. I actually believe that cancer is a metabolic disease, a disease of mitochondrial dysfunction and not genetic in origin as oncologists and cancer researcher have been chasing their tails attempting to prove for decades. Does smoking cause mitochondrial dysfunction in the lungs or does it cause genetic mutations – I would bet the former. I would also suspect that diet plays a huge role in the formation of cancer – namely sugar, wheat and polyunsaturated seed oils (corn oil, canola oil, soybean oil, etc.). It would be interesting to study the diet of smokers who get lung cancer and those whop don’t.
Anyway, I’m rambling… but I hope my point is made that we don’t really know jack about a lot of the chronic diseases that affect us today, if people tell you otherwise they’re full of it.

Sheri

Bob: I agree. There are “risk factors”. These are not causes. As I have said before, my oncologist said “We really don’t know what causes these cancers”. If the oncologist could be honest enough to tell me that, I fail to see why scientists throw tantrums when “we don’t know” is used to describe things. Risk factors are not causes. They are statistical behaviors and so forth that indicate you MAY have a higher risk of cancer. You may not. Much of the time, the “cancer fear” is just a way to try and terrify people. Many of the things that are risk factors are very small risk factors. Come on, it should not have taken lung cancer to make it evident that smoking was a bad idea. People do things that are bad ideas all the time. Get over it—it’s called free will.

Although there is other evidence, what was put forward as irrefutable evidence was that 9/10 men who got lung cancer were smokers while it was only 7/10 women. You were a smoker if you smoked 20 cigarettes in your life. No stats on how many men and women who never got lung cancer were smokers – 9/10 men and 7/10 women is my guess. The majority of victims are 80+ and under 50 is very rare.
Not in the pay of Big Tobacco but got suspicious because of the continual analogy.

David A Smith

“I am certain there is too much certainty in the world.”
― Michael Crichton

greymouser70

And here is another aphorism: “Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.—Voltaire “

Sheri

Agreed with both quotes.

comment image

Bill Powers

Tom I got your bigger point regarding great assurance with little evidence.
My grammar goes away some times too, or is that sometimes also, but then it comes back again never perfect. Is there a psych term for fear of pedanticism.

Phil R

Pedantophobia. 🙂

Tom Halla

Not that I ever heard of, but someone probably came up with some pseudo-latin term for nearly anything.

Tom Hella, Here in Oz a large study was made of immigrants to find out if they learnt english before they came here or after. Some of the feed back and quotes were priceless.One woman said most of the first words she learned were rude ones, but the one that was a real treasure that gives our language it’s teeth was “you have a word for everything”

Tom Halla

English (and the English) have a long tradition of appropriating anything from foreign languages ( and foreigners) anything the found useful, and filing off any serial numbers and claiming it as their own. So American English has a good amount of Spanish words for which the settlers were not quite familiar. And the same sort of thing has gone on with most every language and culture English speakers have encountered. It is not a matter of borrowing, it is unashamed theft.

charles nelson

When it comes to ‘measuring’ the ‘global temperature’, may I point you to what is known as ‘the coastline paradox’.
(from wikipedia)
If the coastline of Great Britain is measured using units (62 miles) long, then the length of the coastline is approximately (1,700 miles). With 31 mile units, the total length is approximately 2,100 miles, approximately 370 miles longer…etc etc.
I do not think that we can safely say we know what is happening to Global Temperature until we have fifty years of stable, universally accepted, calibrated measurements…and not the hotch potch of ‘adjusted’ garbage that passes for data today.

ironargonaut

What is the point of measuring something that varies significantly based which way the wind blows? Literally. I suppose we could use it to determine which the wind was blowing last year. Lest you think I jest consider el Nina and El Nino. It’s not like temperature is a measurement of energy. It’s relationship is often not even linear. At a minimum we would need pressure and humidity also.
This is what Willis is saying, we don’t have even close to enough data. And, no way is temperature the only data we need.

icisil

“This is what Willis is saying, we don’t have even close to enough data. And, no way is temperature the only data we need.”
That seems to me to be the whole point of the article, and he’s right.

Why only 50 years? How about 500?

I like fifty million years. Climate has progressed in a regular periodic way to get to this modern ten thousand year paradise. The lengths of the periods and the magnitude of the bounds did change in an understandable way. This cannot yet be discussed in an open forum because someone with credentials shuts the discussion down with their own bias and repeat the dreaded words, “no one knows”, “no one can know”.
Tom Halla wrote: There a great deal of assertions in climate science made with great assurance, and damn little real evidence.
There is plenty of real evidence. We have many proxies and we especially have the ice core proxies for 800 thousand years in the SH and more than a 100 thousand years in the NH. There is damn little real discussion about most of it. Much of earth is covered by water. There is ice on land and ice covering water. Water changes state between liquid, vapor and ice with huge energy changes. Planets and other bodies in space without water do not regulate temperatures like earth. Earth regulates temperatures with the circulation of water on the surface and in the atmosphere. Convection carries energy in the oceans and atmosphere. Climate people treat earth as static with energy getting removed by IR traveling from the surface up through the heat trapping greenhouse layers. The convection in the oceans and lakes and rivers and in the atmosphere blows this away and it is being ignored.
Earth climate is self correcting. Earth is heated by the sun, but like people, it adjusts its atmosphere and ocean and ice as needed to stay in narrow temperature bounds. Earth is not a non responding object of external forces.
There is plenty of real evidence, we must start openly discussing it.

Agreed!

Agreed!

Sheri

Ice cores are pretty much taken on faith to be thermometers, as are tree rings. There’s plenty of evidence this is not the case. Let’s discuss that.

Ray Boorman

No need to discuss it, Sheri. The only reliable way to determine the temperature of anything is with a thermometer.
What we really need, is the exposure as liars of charlatan’s claiming that whatever particular part of our multivariate world they happen to study, is a reliable guide to past temperatures.

MarkW

I would say that at a minimum we need two full PDO cycles worth of data. Which would be about 120 years.

R. Shearer

Nit pick, “For example, regarding the climate system, every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation. As a result, the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil … where is Dr. Judith’s mysterious “source of heat” supposedly driving that change?”
Does this mean oil introduction to the ocean is accelerating? I don’t think it is. Besides various microbes metabolize oil so its concentration doesn’t build beyond some pseudo equilibrium. As oil is extracted from fields, natural leaks and seeps are actually reduced. Oil is also hydrophobic. It would not spread out to form a monomolecular layer. Further, some oil is heavier than water and sinks.

George Meredith

Re R. Shearer March 9, 2018 at 9:01 pm
I share R. Shearer’s puzzlement about ‘monomolecular layers’ of oil on the surface of the oceans, although I disagree with him that his puzzlement is nit-picking, since Eschenbach baldly concludes that ‘the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil’.
The puzzlement comes from all the unquantified generalities in that one statement – particularly ironic since the author takes Dr. Curry to task for ill-formulated statements.
1 ‘every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean’
– Maybe, but how much goes in?
– How much of that is bouyant?
– What are the rates of evaporation of the various bouyant oil fractions?
– In other words what is the destruction rate?
– And therefore what is the net balance?
2 ‘This oil floats on the surface’
– Better: some types/fractions of oil float on the surface.
3 ‘in a monomolecular layer’
– In ‘a’ single layer, or patches?
– Of what extent?
– Where is this layer (or layers) found? In which oceans? At which latitudes?
– Persistance of this layer?
– Breakup by wave action? Interaction with seawater…
– …which, of course is not pure water but which is a very complex mix of micro-objects.
– Destruction at shorelines?
4 ‘it reduces both conduction and evaporation’. We need some empirical data here.
– To what extent does a ‘monomolecular layer’ reduce conduction?
– It may even have a higher conductivity that sea water.
– The oil in the layer will also have a gas phase and an equilibrium; it will also evaporate.
– Why is this ‘monomolecular layer’ considered impervious to water vapour?
Summa summarum: Would the author or one of his Persian mystics quantify ‘slightly warmer’ for his baffled readers? And please do it without ad hominem invective.
NB: The paper Eschenbach cited in his response to Shearer in no way supports Eschenbach’s assertion about a ‘slightly warmer’ ocean.

ironargonaut

That was a wonderful way to emphasize Willis’ point. kudos. Even in one small item as the effect of oil and quantity there are so many variables and unknowns. Or causes and effects.

HDHoese

This paper Meredith questioned used “…. a monomolecular surface-film experiment with oleyl alcohol…” My Merck Index says it is found in fish oil. Fish oils, often used to locate fish schools, and other organic products are common causes of slicks as previously noted. They often don’t last long especially with a heavy sea. The largest pollution with oil was probably in WWII, to an extent afterwards for a few decades. The amount which natural seeps have been reduced along with anthropogenic oil leaking and oxidation would be an interesting figure. I once went looking for papers on slicks, didn’t find much. Any organic chemists know more about this?
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/4157409/?reload=true

menicholas

“Summa summarum: Would the author or one of his Persian mystics quantify ‘slightly warmer’ for his baffled readers? And please do it without ad hominem invective.”
I shall take a stab at it.
The point was not whether it was a significant amount of heat, or evenly distributed, or whether it was even measurable.
Logically, some heat is kept from leaving the surface for some amount of time.
This principle is used to keep swimming pools from getting cooled off on chilly nights, so it is a provable and well known effect.
The point is not the amount of heat.
It is “some” heat.
Who knows or cares how much?
No one, methinks.
The amount was not the point.

menicholas

Some scientists you mean.
Others…not so much.
Are you familiar with what is known as a “rhetorical device”?

“R. Shearer March 9, 2018 at 9:01 pm
Nit pick, “For example, regarding the climate system, every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation. As a result, the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil … where is Dr. Judith’s mysterious “source of heat” supposedly driving that change?”
Does this mean oil introduction to the ocean is accelerating? I don’t think it is. Besides various microbes metabolize oil so its concentration doesn’t build beyond some pseudo equilibrium. As oil is extracted from fields, natural leaks and seeps are actually reduced. Oil is also hydrophobic. It would not spread out to form a monomolecular layer. Further, some oil is heavier than water and sinks.”

Do not overlook that oil is a natural result of life; especially in the ocean.
Every time, there is a fish feeding frenzy, an oil slick forms on the ocean/sea/lakes/rivers/etc.
Surface oil slicks naturally form over schools of particularly oily fish or crustacea species; e.g. herring and krill.
These slicks form anywhere/everywhere there are fish, crustacea, mammals and water.

R. Shearer

Perhaps this could be a new threat, ocean oil mono-layerization (OOM or OOML).
Anyway, the comment about natural fish/krill oil slicks is interesting. From my perspective, I assumed “oil” to be crude oil. I assumed that some type of accumulation of crude oil was being implied. My initiation reaction was that accumulation of oil in this manner is not likely because of so many biological and physical mechanisms at work which destroy petroleum in the marine environment, not the least of which is wave action but also photo-chemical reactions and oxidation, metabolization, solublization, vaporization, etc. (Fish oil is naturally polar from the existence of fatty acids, the acid end being hydrophillic.) There is some complexity to this as noted by GM.
Crude oil is a mixture. Much of it is non-polar hydrocarbons that are hydrophobic, which preferentially agglomerate, especially on a disturbed non-flat surface. Some polar molecules do indeed like to form films with water but they also will make micelles depending on concentration but all layers (mono-layer or not) are broken by waves. At infinite dilution, everything is dissolved.

“R. Shearer March 10, 2018 at 7:49 am
Perhaps this could be a new threat, ocean oil mono-layerization (OOM or OOML).
Anyway, the comment about natural fish/krill oil slicks is interesting. From my perspective, I assumed “oil” to be crude oil. I assumed that some type of accumulation of crude oil was being implied. My initiation reaction was that accumulation of oil in this manner is not likely because of so many biological and physical mechanisms at work which destroy petroleum in the marine environment, not the least of which is wave action but also photo-chemical reactions and oxidation, metabolization, solublization, vaporization, etc. (Fish oil is naturally polar from the existence of fatty acids, the acid end being hydrophillic.) There is some complexity to this as noted by GM.
Crude oil is a mixture. Much of it is non-polar hydrocarbons that are hydrophobic, which preferentially agglomerate, especially on a disturbed non-flat surface. Some polar molecules do indeed like to form films with water but they also will make micelles depending on concentration but all layers (mono-layer or not) are broken by waves. At infinite dilution, everything is dissolved.”

All biological, geological, chemical processes are complex.
Inherent in the assumption that surface oil slicks are solely temporary conditions requires a static belief that oil slicks dissipate or are consumed quickly thus eliminating the oils.
A belief that ignores surface oil slicks formation is continuous. That oil slicks dissipate or are consumed is irrelevant, new slicks form continuously.
Whether oil is mineral sourced or biologically sourced, there are constant supplies existing, forming and/or entering oceans, rivers, lakes.
Oil slicks are easily spotted by the weakening of wind action on waters. An effect noticed, hypothesized and tested by Ben Franklin.

Geir L

Large amounts of oil and gas is constantly being spewed out of the ground by itself, the human contribution to this ‘pollution’ is miniscule. Whenever there is a ‘large’ oil leakage caused by human activity, it appears dramatic at first. Microbes will take care of it surprisingly fast, even in areas that many people mistakenly consider as vulnerable to oil.

FundMe

Ha Ha I believe the English Navy used to use Oil Bags to still the waters. Having read the input from the chemists on this thread, I thought that I might hope for a definitive ruling on the efficacy of the oilbag from the loo dispersation method for stilling the ocean waves, or at least overcoming their breakieness. Please help one who sails a little boat.

Tsk Tsk

Since the whole point of this post appears to be pedantry, let’s have at it:

There’s more. Nobody knows why the Little Ice Age didn’t turn into a real ice age.

Because we were in an ice age before, during, and after? We’re in an ice age right now, just not a glaciation.

zazove

“they claim that they can predict the future out a hundred years”
Come off it Willis this is straw man territory. Who is “they”? And where I their quote?
You’ve written lots about what we don’t know but what we do know is that on top of any other fluctuation adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm it.

ironicman

‘…..adding CO2 to the atmosphere will warm it.’
In a laboratory, not in the atmosphere at large.

zazove

Why not?

charles nelson

zazove.
because of water vapour convective cooling.
because of water vapour transport of heat to winter polar regions.

Rhoda Klapp

What laboratory experiment conducted sensibly ever showed a temperature change?

zazove

because of water vapour convective cooling.
Then it condenses.
because of water vapour transport of heat to winter polar regions.
Where it melts the ice.
The energy doesn’t disappear.

charles nelson

Zazove…why do you think Greenland put on an extra 250 GT of ice during the ‘warmest year evah’?
How did all that ice get there?

zazove

Zazove…why do you think Greenland put on an extra 250 GT of ice during the ‘warmest year evah’?
How did all that ice get there?
Um, it lost that much and the sea ice volume is down 70% in 30 years.
http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/files/2017/08/GrnLndMassTrnd.png
You were telling me where all that heat was going, do go on…. or you could just give yourself another uppercut.

schitzree

Oh look, a graph that starts in 2002. The year greenland ice sheet mass took a downturn.
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Greenland-Ice-Sheet-Mass-Balance-Fettweis-2017.jpg
Needless to say. It was gaining mass for years just prior.
~¿~

beng135

zazove, that “graph” is from nasa. There’s your problem — goobermint paid shills…..

mellyrn

zazove, the atmosphere is gaseous. Warming a gas (or a mixture of gases) causes it to expand, if it can. The atmosphere can expand (there is no rigid roof). It does expand. Yes, as you note, the energy does not “go away” — it converts to a different form, e.g. mechanical, as in the expanding atmosphere.

zazove

Lol, charles posts nonsense and you choose to reply to me instead. Biased much?

MarkW

zazove, stop and think for once. If energy didn’t “disappear” then the earth would have first melted and then vaporized millions of years ago.
Convection cause by water vapor carries heat high into the atmosphere where it does indeed “disappear”, into space.

mellyrn

zazove, changing the subject -> cognitive dissonance. The energy that charles describes being moved does not necessarily cause a temperature change; any energy that causes a mechanical change (or an acoustic change or a chemical change or an electrical change . . . ) cannot also cause a temperature change. It was your insistence that the atmosphere “must” warm that was nonsense.

Frederik

zazove, just like all alarmist data your nasa graph is discontinued right before the growth year. january 2018 would have shown the 250 GT increase. but they discontinued it….
how inconvenient is that?

LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks

Really?
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/29/climate-science-on-trial-evidence-shows-co2-cools-the-atmosphere/
CAGW is not only scientifically unsound, it is scientifically impossible.

Hugs

Science of Doom has a slightly more professional approach to this.

Sheri

Hugs—yes, but they also have something of a slant. I enjoy readiing their site, but I’d never question them because I would expect to be put down for not believing as they do.

“Come off it Willis this is straw man territory. Who is “they”? And where I their quote?”
Can you possibly be serious?
The entire AGW scam is based on constant production of, and constant transmission of, horrifying long-range predictions of the effects of CO2. A hundred years is the scammers’ typical projection. The entire power base the alarmists have built is based on terror–their fraudulent predictions of dire effects in the future.
Even if you don’t follow this issue, the 100 year predictions of doom are constantly broadcast through every possible media, to every possible audience. Also in schools, Hollywood, TV, and everywhere else influence is possible. You might want to get out more, if you seriously do not know who “they” are, or what they predict.
Here are just 3 examples, the top results of a Bing search on :
“It looks like the world could be a much hotter place by the end of the century.New data released by Nasa scientists is revealing how temperature and rainfall patterns around the world may change by the year 2100.
Using climate change predictions based on increasing levels of carbon dioxide, the data reveals what may happen to the climate in individual towns and cities.” Daily Mail, 2015
“According to scientist David Archer, whose research is often featured in the renowned Nature magazine, the C02 that we are emitting from fossil fuels today will still be affecting the climate in many millenia from now. His conclusion is that even though the majority of C02 emitted from burning a single tonne of coal or oil today will be absorbed over a few centuries by the oceans and vegetation, approximately 25% of it will still be lingering in the atmosphere in 1,000 years, and 10% still remaining and impacting the climate in 100,000 years time.” UN University, 2011
“Scientists nearly double sea level rise projections for 2100, because of Antarctica
“Sea levels could rise nearly twice as much as previously predicted by the end of this century if carbon dioxide emissions continue unabated, an outcome that could devastate coastal communities around the globe, according to new research published Wednesday. The main reason? Antarctica.” Washington Post, 2016
Thousands more such predictions are issued every week. Try a Google Alert on “climate predictions 2100.” You’ll be able to compile your own list! Try it, it’s fun!

R. Shearer

Here’s a good one I think you will like, “We don’t inherit the earth from our parents, we borrow it from our children.”
We’re all being pressured by this systemic emotional guilt trip by claims that cannot be proven to be true.

beng135

“Come off it Willis this is straw man territory. Who is “they”? And where I their quote?”
Can you possibly be serious?

Yeah, an extreme example of somebody playing “stupid”.

menicholas

Zitherzatherzuzz is trolling…I can sense it.
Hey, zazz…do your own homework.
If you are somehow unaware of this, stick around and pay attention this time.

MarkW

beng135, he’s not playing.

Frederik

Com’on Kent Zazove supports the IPCC claims, their predictions only go to 2097 not 2100! Everybody knows that!
(sarc)

u.k.(us)

FWIW,
“Knowing is not understanding. There is a great difference between knowing and understanding: you can know a lot about something and not really understand it.”
Charles Kettering

Richard111

If oil on the surface of the sea reduces evaporation wouldn’t that result in less rain, more droughts?

ironicman

Scafetta’s cycles based on solar orbit wobbles, due to planet perturbations, is worth a closer look because of its connection with the PDO and 60 year cycle, found in ice cores and shallow sea cores.
I would also point out that the LIA came to an end around 1900 in the Southern Hemisphere, icebergs were large and plentiful, which maybe related to Length of Day (LOD).

(Please note that “nobody knows” doesn’t mean “nobody claims to know”.

First chuckle of the day.

Willis’ article ‘The Source Of The Heat’ rather nicely sums up our knowledge of how the Climate works.. The answer is that we know almost nothing about how it all works. There is no shortage of theories, but no sure knowledge of which theory is right. Fortunately, nothing really unusual is happening in the weather right now.

menicholas

+ a whole big bunch

Matt_S

What is driving the shortwave increase post 2012? Less clouds I am assuming, but why?

beng135

That’s my guess — less clouds. Why?
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all

menicholas

The sources of heat that may change and that cause a change in ambient heat are
1) coming from outside in, i.e. the sun
2) coming from inside out, i.e. the earth
1) There was some change in heat coming in but we reached a zero point somewhere around the new millennium. My results show that more CO2 does not cause any heat entrapment so we can rule out this interaction.
2) most probably due to a realignment with the sun, earth’s inner core has been moving, north east. Quite fast over the past century, compared to previous centuries. This may account for the [extra] warming of the arctic. Namely, my results show that there has been no warming in the SH. In fact, here where I live, in South Africa, it has been cooling [looking at minimum temperatures.

fizzissist

“2) coming from inside out, i.e. the earth”
That has been a big question I keep asking with generally no quantifiable response.
Volcanoes, lava, sea floor vents, and general conduction from the earth’s core… How much heat is going into our atmosphere from the core and how is this affecting climate?
If the science is truly settled, then someone has the numbers.

Ben Wouters

fizzissist March 10, 2018 at 6:32 am

How much heat is going into our atmosphere from the core and how is this affecting climate?

Average flux for continents is ~65 mW/m^2, oceans on average 101 mW/m^2.
As flux this is irrelevant compared to the solar flux, BUT the temperature of the crust just below our feet (20-30 m) is completely caused by geothermal energy, Same for the oceans below the solar heated mixed surface layer (the “base” temperature)
This means that every morning the sun rises it doesn’t start to warm a blackbody at 0K, but it adds its energy to an already warm surface, increasing its temperature a little.
In this situation occasionally large magma eruptions in the oceans can increase this base temperature.
eg the Ontong Java Event, some 100 million km^3 magma erupting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontong_Java_Plateau

Ben, fizzizist
I have followed an empirical process to prove that there is no man made warming, as shown below. I have no answer on why in South Africa there never was any warming other than that earth inner core has been moving north east.
To give a summary of all my investigations into climate change starting ca. 2009/2010
Concerned to show that man made warming (AGW ) is correct and indeed happening, I thought that here [in Pretoria, South Africa} I could easily prove that. Namely the logic following from AGW theory is that more CO2 would trap heat on earth, hence we should find minimum temperature (T) rising pushing up the mean T. Here, in the winter months, we hardly have any rain but we have many people burning fossil fuels to keep warm at night. On any particular cold winter’s day that results in the town area being covered with a greyish layer of air, viewable on a high hill outside town in the early morning.
I figured that as the population increased over the past 40 years, the results of my analysis of the data [of a Pretoria weather station] must show minimum T rising, particularly in the winter months. Much to my surprise I found that the opposite was happening: minimum T here was falling, any month….I first thought that somebody must have made a mistake: the extra CO2 was cooling the atmosphere, ‘not warming’ it. As a chemist, that made sense to me as I knew that whilst there were absorptions of CO2 in the area of the spectrum where earth emits, there are also the areas of absorption in the 1-2 um and the 4-5 um range where the sun emits. Not convinced either way by my deliberations and discussions as on a number of websites, I first looked at a number of weather stations around me, to give me an indication of what was happening:comment image
The results puzzled me even more. Somebody [God/Nature] was throwing a ball at me…..The speed of cooling followed a certain pattern, best described by a quadratic function.
I carefully looked at my earth globe and decided on a particular sampling procedure to find out what, if any, the global result would be. Here is my final result on that:comment image
Hence, looking at my final Rsquare on that, I figured out that there is no AGW, at least not measurable.
Arguing with me that 99% of all scientists disagree with me is fruitless. You cannot have an “election” about science. You only need one man to get it right…..

mellyrn

henryp, please do a guest post here. Thank you kindly.

Mario Lento

Willis: nice article that makes us all think about rethinking about what we think. I like it!
PS good job responding.

George Tetley

Willis,
I agree 100% with your Analise,
But 97% of the above disagree with my decision.
Thanks Willis, as usual great .

Alan Tomalty

As an example of just how bad an average scientific climate study report can be
Here are my first 19 criticisms of David Battisti and Etienne Tetrault-Pinard and M.B. Baker’s “scientific paper” called “Impacts of Surface Moisture on Surface Temperature Variability. Submitted, J. Climate, Dec.2015″ Dr. Battisti is one of the top 10 global warming hoaxters.
1) Both in the abstract and paper, Battisti and the other 2 authors say
” A striking finding is that globally, all land areas belong to one of two
regimes, defined by the role of surface moisture on temperature variability. In
’dry’ regions variations in moisture enhance the impacts of forcing anomalies
on temperature, whereas in ’wet’ regions, surface moisture variations, acting
by a somewhat different mechanism, damp the temperature fluctuations.”
This statement is unbelievable in every way. In the body of the paper he even has different formulas for each area. Computers love it when they only have to consider 2 outcomes of a variable. Reality not so much.
2) Battisti and the other 2 authors have it right when they say that surface temperature variability depends on turbulent heat flux. However he puts together variables and coefficients into equations as if he invented the term heat flux. If he had checked the literature he would have seen that there are no set of equations that can accurately describe heat flux. There are only approximations. At present noone has proved any equations relating Reynolds numbers to turbulence. Turbulence has a mathematical definition. It is the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces. Dr. Richard Feynmann described turbulence as the most important unsolved problem of classical physics. For Battisti and the other 2 authors to use the word “turbulent” in their study as in the words “turbulent heat flux” is an insult to all the greatest physicists of the ages. Furthermore Not one of Battisti and the other 2 authors’s references were to any general or even specific textbook or paper on heat transfer. They all referenced other climate model studies. For those interested I refer you to the bible “Radiative Heat Transfer” by Dr. Michael F. Modest
3)The title of the paper should have read ” Survey and computer simulation analysis of climate model variability on the impacts of soil moisture on summertime land surface temperature variability” If you compare this corrected title to what Battisti and the other 2 authors actually ended up naming it you can see how fraudulent this paper really was.
4) The abstract says that heat flux is a function of surface moisture and this is oberved both in observations and models. Yet the body of report says this is true only in GCMs(General circulation computer models).
5) line 89 the word “large” should be replaced with “small”
6) The abstract quotes “Although temperature variance is generally somewhat under predicted by our model” This makes it seem as if he is referring to reality when in fact their model is underpredicting other models. I have come to the realization that climate scientist PhDs sometimes get so lost in their computer simulations that they forget that there is a real world out there.
7) All through the report Battisti and the other 2 authors refer to ERA40 reanalysis data as if it represents real world soil moisture samples. It doesn’t. It is a computer simulation that uses satellite data to calculate soil moisture. I will quote the ERA web site limitations A) Tropical moisture larger than observed from 1991 onwards B)precipitation greatly exceeds evaporation C) Spurious arctic temperature trends. Nowhere does Battisti and the other 2 authors mention these caveats.
8) The last sentence of abstract says “where warming causes a climatological shift from the moist regime to the dry regime.” Common AGW theory says that increased temperatures will cause water vapour forcing. How that would cause a climatological shift from a moist regime to a dry regime can only be found on Hercules’ bare bottom.
9) page 6 of the report says that the physical parameters controlling summertime surface temperature variability are not well understood. So how is a computer simulation (that Battisti and the other 2 authors calls his “toy model” that is then compared to other computer simulations) going to improve our understanding?
10) Equation 6 on page 12 states that heat flux into ground from surface is linear where the coefficient is always positive. However the general standard model of AGM is Heat anomaly = (@ * Temp diff) + IR forcing However Heat anomaly in this equation is fictititious and isnt 0 if the system is not in equilbrium. Therefore If in equilbrium -@ * Temp diff = IR forcing Clearly the coefficient is negative in Standard model and positive in GCM usage. So I guess that the computers to be able to calculate anything have to disagree with the standard model of AGM. Sometimes I get the idea that I am reviewing PhD work from “Alice in Wonderland”
11) page 7 The 3rd sentence “An
unexpected and somewhat puzzling finding in our study is that (at least in the world of GCMs) on
monthly time scales surface moisture fluctuations also have a significant impact on sensible heat
fluxes, which also modifies temperature variability.”
Every scientific report should have a hypothesis to which the scientist is carrying out experiments to try to prove the null hypothesis.The sentence
above is a finding which should be the basis of another scientific study. It should not be included as part of this report’s hypothesis. It seems climate scientists dont even know what the scientific method is all about.
12) on page 7 the hypothesis should include the word “summer”. The text also crudely defines summer as 3 specific calendar months in Northern hemisphere and 3 others in Southern hemisphere. However in figure 16 they present 5 months as summer in the Northern hemisphere.
13) All the variable letters and subscripts should be in 1 easy to reference table. The table that is given lists only 7.
14) Only 15 references are given
15) The members of the peer review committee are not stated
16) page 8 The authors mention that they should use the 10cm sil temperature but instead they use the 2 metre air temperature because of ability to compare the results with University of Delaware observations. However they do not compare the error factor that will result from this.
17) The report often talks of parameterizations. However true parameterizations consist of fitting a curve of an independent variable to a dependent variable variable by connecting data points that represent real world sample data. This report only fits curves to computer produced data points.
18) Figures 13 and 14 are confusing as to what the fit really is for the “toy” model vs the other GCMs.
19) LE is defined on page 10 as latent heat yet on page 33 it is split up into latent heat flux and evapotranspiration and on page 9, L is defined as the latent heat of evaporation and E is net flux of vapour to the atmosphere. on this same page 9 in equation 1 , LE is a latent heat flux but how can it be both heat flux and a water vapour amount?
I am only 1 /3 of the way through this report. More to come.

It is the Reynold’s number not turbulence that is defined as the ratio of inertial forces to viscous forces. While no closed form exact equation describes the onset of turbulence, or it’s heat or mass transfer details, approximations like LES do a fair job of estimating net averages in limited cases. For very complex situations like atmospheric flow, the result is chaotic flow and no long term solution is ever going to be made with any accuracy, but the envelope of boundaries can be made from the energy balance, storage possibilities, transport (wind and ocean currents), and latent heat storage and release.

Alan Tomalty

Ya thanks for correcting me Shows that copying from notes can screw things up. In any case trying to calculate energy balance,storage possiblities, wind and ocean currents and latent heat storage and release is amugs game not to mention getting the correct dependencies when everything seems to affect everything.
I have 2 major questions
1) Does global precipitation overall have to equal global condensation not counting asteroids as a source of water?
2) How much of the latent heat upon release of condensation and precipitation goes into outer space?. My guess is almost all of it because if a significant portion of it stayed in the atmosphere we would have runaway global warming just with water vapour alone.

Jeff Norman

Everything we do results in waste enthalpy being emitted into the environment. If you summed up all this heat energy, what would be the equivalent W/m² value?

charles nelson

I have often made this observation, even with all machines working at 50% efficiency the waste heat has got to be significant.

mellyrn

Jeff, is this what you are looking for? Or something like?
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/

Jeff Norman

I estimate about 0.04 W/m², just from primary energy consumption in 2013, however the IEA defines that.
Humans in total emit about 0.00005 W/m² just from existing.

John Dowser

The start of the article does not need the sophistry. No matter if “the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil” or there’s a “rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket”. Because it’s still a valid question to ask about “the main sources of heat that account for the incremental”.
Note that nobody mentioned any “new source” or “changed source”. Only Willis introduces this notion.
As if to illustrate Willis exactly does the same trick when he writes “Nobody knows why the Roman times were generally warmer than times prior to that”. Which just implies again Judith’s question on what are then “the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature” — in this case the Roman Times.
Which leaves us with a horribly phrased article without much coherent logic in relation to the introduction. The technical content as such is okay but it’s unclear why it needed to be written like that.

Philip Schaeffer

I believe you are correct on all points.

angech

What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?.
1. Heat source the sun, any small cumulative increase in it’s temperature or distance closer to the earth.
2. Factors that modify the influence of the sun.
a. water vapour and clouds
b. increases in other GHG
c. albedo decrease changes, more soot, less polar icecaps, algal blooms, reforestation etc.
3. Possible slow turnover of deeper warmer currents on a 60-100 year timescale, like El Nino but longer.
Problem is implies less heat went out when currents went under and not really a sustainable cause of incremental heat rise.
Sub sea volcanoes could add to this.
4. Increase in activity of earth’s core causing more heat diffusal out.Problem is this is very small in the scheme of things.
5. Going through bigger meteorite clouds for years?
Scraping the bottom of the barrel here.

Mr Dessler seems fixated on small amounts of minor GHG to the exclusion of a lot of the more important things. Does he have an agenda in mind?

Donna K. Becker

Please, everyone, it’s = it is. Its is the possessive. Yes, I’m both a Grammar Nazi and a nitpicker.

TedL

But how does one remember? Its is like his and hers. No apostrophe.

Roger Knights

“But how does one remember?”
The way I remembered when I was learning was to remember “never possessive”—i.e., “it’s” is always a contraction, and therefore “its” is never possessive.

gbaikie

There is one source of heat on Earth and that is a warmed ocean.
And presently, it appears that sunlight is main source of heat which warms the ocean.
The ocean surface temperature is the global air temperature.
The average ocean surface air temperature is about 17 C.
And average land surface air temperature is about 10 C.
Without the higher ocean surface air temperature, the average land surface temperature would
colder than 10 C.

Wim Röst

gbaikie, could you tell me where you did get your numbers from?

gbaikie

Berkeley Earth. At:
Berkeleyearth.org/papers
(Bottom on list:
“New estimate… )
Also google: average ocean surface temperature:
Window 2universe.org:
” average temperature of the ocean surface waters is about 17 degrees celsius”
and 70% earth surface is ocean which results in 30% of land being 10 C if average global is about 15 C.

Wim Röst

Thanks for the info gbaikie, I will have a look at the Berkeley Earth paper.

gbaikie

I also add, that it’s been said for a long, that the tropics warms the rest of the world.
I would add that about 80% of tropics is ocean and that it is the tropical ocean not the tropical land
which warms the rest of the world- though that’s fairly obvious and one could say it doesn’t need to
be said.
And the average temperature of tropical ocean which is a bit less than 40% of entire earth surface,
is about 26 C.
And having this large warm area, increases the oceans average temperature both in sense that smarter kids will increase the grade average of a class and it actually warms the rest of the ocean.

gbaikie

Re, doesn’t need to said, Africa has tropical land, Africa doesn’t warm Europe, but the Gulf Stream does warm Europe. India is tropical land, India doesn’t warm China and average temperature of China is colder than continental US. And Indian has very warm average temperature.
Berkeley Earth: India: 24.5 C and China: 7.5 C
And Africa is known as warmest continent.
And both Africa and India are increasing all of Earth’s land area average temperature in terms of
the class average of 10 C as they are a significant fraction of all land area.
Or India is 1/3 of land area of China, but if India and China were in same class the much warmer India significantly increase average temperature of China. China and India average is about 12 C.
Or average land temperature of 10 C may not seem cold but a lot land areas are cold, as in Canada being – 4 C but Africa increases the class average score. But Africa does not warm the air of Canada or Europe. Rather it’s the warmer ocean which increases the air temperature of Canada and Europe.

Thanks Willis for posting the CERES data. I had been wondering how the large drop in surface temperature recorded in 2008 ….about 0.7 C, would show up in CERES data. I can see that although there is a drop in surface absorption of solar short-wave, there is a greater drop a couple of years later, so there does not seem to be a simple relation of solar incoming at the surface and surface temperature. I would think this relationship must be subject to phases of storage and release of ocean heat in the top layers (about 200m) – which in the case of ENSO cycles, seems to depend on oscillations in wind.
If you take a look at the Greenland ice-core data (Alley), you can see abrupt shifts in surface temperature of the order of 3 C almost from one year to the next…..something that could only be caused by shifting winds. The warming occurs in a distinctive pattern – most particularly in the depth of the last ice-age between 50ky and 30 kyr BP…….sudden warming occurs in what looks like a damped oscillation with several peaks (Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles) within a 10,000 year beat cycle. If one looks at the duration of each of the D/O events, they peak in an 8:5:3:2:1:1 series within the beat cycles, but this clear Fibonacci series disappears either side of the glacial maximum where things are more chaotic. However, one could discern a similar but less clear pattern for the Holocene (which may also be a 10,000 year beat cycle).
If this pattern is indeed a feature of the earth-system, then the peaks and troughs such as Roman Warm Period and Medieval Warm Period/LIA are relatively predictable. Recent work on the Tibetan Plateau using tree-ring data by a team from the Chinese Academy of Sciences claims to find an 1100 year cycle over the last 2500 years of data, using spectral analysis. But as we can see from the Greenland data, the cycles are not ‘regular’ and averaging may obscure the pattern. Of course, I am with you on the ‘nobody knows’ when it comes to what might drive such a pattern – these are long time periods for some kind of solar driver.

Here is a radical thought. A story which I came across earlier today sparked a new thought on a speculative thought from a few years back. Here is the story, …https://www.space.com/39942-africa-blob-earth-magnetic-flip.html
Three or four years ago I noticed a long shot correlation between great quakes on the Cascadia Fault zone, and the shift between Warm and Cool Periods. It just so happens that there is a major quake spaced at the beginning of the Medieval WP as well as one at the end of the MWP. Then there is one in 1700 AD which I think marks the transition point to our current Warm Period. This correlations holds true goping further back in time.
So the connection between the above is that the story at Space dot is talking about the magnetic field anomaly in South Africa, and that a way was found to flesh out the history of changes and shifts in the magnetic field. Here is an excerpt from the story detailing the last occurrences “…The data show that the magnetic field experienced sudden directional shifts between A.D. 400 and 450, and then again between A.D. 750 and 800. Between about A.D. 1225 and 1550, …”.
So with the above dates in mind here is the list of known very large Cascadia quakes which align with the above dates of magnetic field shifts, …400 AD, 810 AD, and 1310 AD. This makes my initial thought on the relationship between Cascadia quakes and climate shifts even stronger, and it points to a possible cause of the Cascadia large quakes. Think of the picture that this shows of how the climate system may work.

angech

“What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?”
“What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket?”
“I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question—temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.”
Hmm.
Judith is asking if there is an incremental rise in temperature [taken as a given], which, if any of the known heat sources changing [increasing] is/are mainly responsible.
Basically.
I presume she is asking if you exclude CO2/GHG as causes, and if the temperature is still going up in increments over a long period of time, what natural causes would be occurring to explain this.
The question could have been pedantically worded better, I agree.
She was not asking about the GHG effect She states elsewhere on her blog GHG may have an important role in the warming [if any is occurring], just that this is not quantifiable yet , hence what other mechanisms might be causing incremental heat gain.
I think it is a fair question if taken in good faith.
Could we discuss it as it was meant to be understood instead?

R. Shearer

Good points.

angech

“temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.”
Though you did not alter the heat sources you altered the equation by changing the state of the system.
Judith’s question did not relate to changes in the system, only the heat sources.
You are unfairly comparing apples with oranges.
Furthermore, given a few caveats, unchanging source of heat, unchanging radiating receptor of heat, set distance apart, no overcoats or unicorns, I doubt the temperature could vary. Note the emphasis on unchanging receptor, planets with atmospheres and seas are definitely not unchanging

Robert from oz

30 odd Years plus untold millions of dollars worth of super computer computations later and what do we have ? Its Co2 wot dunnit 97% of us agree and us climate scientists don’t lie .

R. Shearer

Perhaps a few Bitcoins mined at taxpayer’s expense also, at least recently.

paqyfelyc

@Willis
Come on, Willis, you know enough of physics to answer
“What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket?”
In the case of your jacket, the heat source is the slight imbalance in flux experienced during your putting the jacket. You have to count it as a source
Your body radiates/convects ~80W before you put the jacket.
And your body +jacket will radiate just as much after reaching a new equilibrium.
But, before reaching the equilibrium, the jacket will radiate slightly less. Maybe ~50W average for a few minutes. Manwhile you accumulate ~30J/s
This source doesn’t last,
It is needed to accumulate some heat to rise your skin temperature,
It is not needed to keep the new temperature reached at new equilibrium.
Same on Earth: for the Earth to globally warm, you need an imbalance top of atmosphere (1). It need not be huge.
However, surface and atmosphere can also warm if some other place (ocean) cools, just through different distribution of heat. Just shouldn’t be called “global warming” (2)
In both case, a fraction of W/m² is enough (*). So we know that we don’t have data precise enough to know if we experienced (1) or (2) in recent decades,
I, however, know there is NO reason for the top of atmophere to be at precise equilibrium in the +/-0.01W/m² range required for no significant warming (or cooling) to occur in a decade.
For the very simple reason Earth is not flat, homogenous, non rotating as Trenberth and friend picture it. So Earth is forever out of equilibrium by day and summer (more energy recieve than lost) and by night and winter (opposite). And this more or less balanced out… but only “more or less”; not with the required precision.
So best guess is (1). Obviously, past event show that no GHG are required for it to happen.
Actually, the miracle is rather that Earth temperature is so stable, in a narrow +/-1% range. It takes huge negative feedbacks and bumpers to constrain temperature so much.
(*)a year is 31,5 millions seconds, 0.01W in a century, or 0.1 W in a decade, are 31.5 MJ, enough for a 1°C rise in temperature of ~7,5 ton of water, or, equivalently, the whole atmospere column above 1m². 1°C/century : this is the magnitude of the effect we are looking for. To see this effect, we need +/-0.01 W/m² data precision. 3 order of magnitude better than current instrumentation.

R. Shearer

Also, to destroy the example, your body will adjust its metabolism or make some other change to maintain stasis.

Curious George

I don’t live in stasis, and I lose less heat with my ski jacket (not a black body) on.

paqyfelyc

Strangely enough you DONT lose less energy with your ski jacket on, in the sense that, jacket on or not, you still lose just as much energy you produce.
The difference is, without the jacket, your skin is the jacket for your inner body, keeping it warm while being cold; OTOH, with the jacket, your skin is warm, too, instead of being cold, which is much more confortable.
And, of course, being homeotherme, you tend to adjust your production of energy with the temperature of your skin, and this too, is a source of discomfort.
The Earth is not homeotherme, doesn’t adjust it energy production to its “skin” temperature.

Lawrence13

I have two questions.
What happens to water vapour in a period of glaciation and does it lead or follow
Can as- seen with recent sudden stratospheric warming events, high and low pressure system align in a certain pattern where the heat balance falls or rises. For example in the northern hemisphere’s winter where large high pressure systems cling like barnacles on north America and Eurasia thus atmospheric heat leaks into space. I haven’t read all of Willie’s article but when he says if you put a coat on you get warmer of course you do as humans actually create body temperature but with the earth as far as I get it there are only three source of heat the sun, the oceans and the molten core

If an internal combustion engine stops working (won’t start) it is reasonable to look for a single cause — no fuel, no spark, no air, dead battery etc. If an internal combustion engine runs but is down on power, there may be a single cause or a number of things that contribute to the problem — leaky rings plus restricted air filter plus dirty injectors.
Why would anyone try to blame “global warming” in a complex climate system on a single cause?

Tom in Florida

Because that’s where the money is.

R. Shearer

Do you hear that change in noise the engine is making? I don’t. But believe me, if you don’t switch to this expensive fully synthetic lubricant today, that engine is going to die in 100 years.

Gums

Because progressives wish to “help” to “make things better” and so forth.
Blaming conditions upon something that “they” and eventually all of us can do something about is the root of the hysteria. The real climate science folks may have started without understanding the progressive mentality, but it was easy to find a human emission of a human activity and it was offf to the races. Endless grant money, other people’s money, and a continued source of income.
I will guarantee that if the “consensus” was that climate was changing and we can’t nail down “the one thing”, that little grant money would be available except for mitigation and preparation.
Gums sez…..

save energy

pull the other leg, it has bells on it …
Willis, Is this you ?comment image&f=1

The source of heat is every atom on and around the planet whose temperature is above absolute zero.
Plus the sun’s radiation.
It’s kind of an irrelevant question.
Movement of heat is what matters. Movement.
By “climate” we mean the movement of heat in the atmosphere and oceans.
The climate is a dissipative open system (heat engine) moving heat from equator to poles.
It is complex and characterised by numerous both negative (friction) and positive (excitable) feedbacks.
As such it is chaotic and subject to nonlinear pattern formation – the emergence of dissipative structures whose function is the export of entropy.
Thus the only certainty about the climate system is that it will always be changing.
Primarily by it’s internal dynamics, with or without external periodic astrophysical forcing.
Alternate configurations, called attractors, exist with very different temperatures at a given location but no difference in the global heat budget.
Such as glacial and interglacial. Or MWP and LIA, etc.

A C Osborn

Mr. Eschenbach, some reinforcement of “it is the Clouds”.
This Chinese study suggests that the “haitus” may have been caused by changes in cloud cover.
Note that they do not propose the reverse, ie that changes in cloud cover could have caused the warming, that of course was CO2.
https://www.thegwpf.com/new-study-cooling-clouds-caused-global-warming-hiatus/

Gibo

Willis Says
PS—As usual, I politely request that when you comment you QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so we can all understand what you are discussing. Please note that although the request is polite, if you ignore it, I may not be … I’m tired of picking random unsourced uncited unreferenced spitballs off the wall.
It is not a single word that I find fault with, however I do have an increasing dislike for the general attitude expressed in most of your posts. I am finding your posts increasingly hard to read with your extremely smug know all attitude. I think that Dr Roy put it more politely several years ago in this post.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/10/citizen-scientist-willis-and-the-cloud-radiative-effect/
And I am trying to be polite….

zazove

Let’s hope he’s off “meditating on Mark Twain’s words”.

David Dibbell

Willis,
You say, “this is a horribly phrased question.” in reference to the headline on Dr. Curry’s blog. Then you say, “I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question.” I agree the question is poorly worded from the viewpoint of the concepts of heat and temperature.
But it should be noted that this is not Dr. Curry’s question. It is from Judge Alsup.
http://blogs2.law.columbia.edu/climate-change-litigation/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/case-documents/2018/20180306_docket-317-cv-06011_order.pdf
From the viewpoint of a judge, this is a reasonable question, as I see it.

As, I hope?, every engineer knows: temperature is only one of the manifestations of energy or as we engineers call it enthalpy. The others include: velocity. pressure, strain, potential, latent etc. etc.
Most of the confusion within the climate debate lies in this fact; as repeatedly radiation is equated with temperature via this ubiquitous term: “sensivity.
The IPCC is responsible for this confusion due to its definition of Radiative Forcing, equating this to an energy flux and then a temperature. Total thermodynamic rubbish.
Analogies are never very good; but here is an example:
Stick your wet finger up in the air to find out the direction of the wind. The cool side tells you what you want to know. Now ask where the energy went.
Well we all know the answer to that —: Phase change on your wet finger, manifested by a change in temperature; but NO change in the enthalpy involved. The evaporated water has scarpered off with it.
OK you pedantics, we could waste a lot of time on this; but I trust you get my drift.

I meant to add to this that Willis is right: there does not need to be a change in heat, enthalpy, energy or whatever for temperature to change.

angech

yes, he is right
in numerous situations
as is cognog2
and wrong
in other situations.
Care to narrow it down a bit?

Johanus

@Willis “…this is a horribly phrased question. …”
Willis doth protest too much, methinks. Lady Judith’s use of the term “source” is perfectly valid, if construed as an observation, not a judgement.
“What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in my body surface temperature when I put on a jacket?”
So, your ‘body surface’ was just hanging around, minding its own business. Then, suddenly, it started to sweat. “I’m getting warm. Something must be heating me up. Where’s that heat coming from!”
Then it ‘observed’. It made this observation: something new, that wasn’t there before. A ‘jacket surface’ had suddenly appeared The body observed: “long wave IR measurements confirm that more heat is being absorbed from the direction of the ‘jacket’, than before the ‘jacket’ appeared.
Lo, a new source of heat hath appeared! (From the POV of the ‘body surface’)
😐

For example, regarding the climate system, every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation. As a result, the oceans end up slightly warmer than they would be without the oil … where is Dr. Judith’s mysterious “source of heat” supposedly driving that change?

The source of the heat is the the same source as for the geothermal gradient.
However, if “every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean” and “this oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer,” there would be a very thick layer of oil at the surface of the ocean.

R. Shearer

And hence, Canadian oil sands…

Jorge Oliveira

Dr Judith Curry posseses an internal source of heat, doesn’t she ?

I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question

Willis, that was not Judith’s question; it was the #8 on the JUDGE’S list of questions as a prelude to the “Exxon knew” affaire. You don’t seem to have paid much attention to Judith’s always excellent blog this time. I’m sure JC would have asked a different question.
If a judge asks a question, he may like an answer rather than being told he should have asked a different question, which the resonder is about reword for him and then answer that instead, with his own pet hypothesis.. The answer to #8 is, of course, the Sun.
If we may assume that he is not totally illiterate on the issue, he may in fact be asking the plaintiff to establish where the heat is coming from: the sun or Exxon’s products !
His use of the term “incremental warming” is also encouraging. He does not seem to be a fan of Al Gore movies.

At the top of J.C’s article:
https://judithcurry.com/2018/03/09/what-are-the-main-sources-of-heat-that-account-for-the-incremental-rise-in-temperature-on-earth/

The judge posed 8 science questions for each side to respond to. Dessler provided his answer to all 8 questions. My post focuses on question #8:
What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?

extra CO2 is not a source of ( heat ) energy. Do the 3D flux integral around a volume or air or CO2 and the result is zero. It is not a source of heat.

Tom in Florida

“extra CO2 is not a source of ( heat ) energy. Do the 3D flux integral around a volume or air or CO2 and the result is zero. It is not a source of heat.”
I suspect that was the point of the question.

Peta of Newark

Exactly
We don’t need any source of heat to get rising temperatures – all we do is use/let/force the existing heat energy to impinge upon something with a lower specific heat capacity.
By actual example ‘dry dirt’ versus ‘damp dirt’ or ‘clear cut forest’ versus ‘growing/mature forest’
Water has an epic heat capacity hence, altering the water content of anything will dramatically alter its temperature response to a given energy input,
Ask any (arable farmer why he ventures out with a plough/cultivator in the springtime.
He’ll tell that one of the main reasons, apart from destroying the competition to his intended crop, is to “dry out and hence warm up the seedbed”
The Farmer has to do that because the only significant sources of fertile dirt on the Earth are at high latitudes – places with short growing seasons and very variable climates. The farmer sets out with the deliberate intention of changing the climate and since (end of) World War 2, has had the tools to do it = very large tractors, ploughs and cultivators.
He creates a low albedo surface with a large (rough) surface area and devoid of shade that comes from living plants.
Regard chlorophyll as Ma Nature’s sun cream.
Even before we get into the subject of ‘nitrogen fertiliser’ – one of the biggest misnomers of our modern times. Yes it makes things green and growing but it actually strips fertility out of the dirt.
Doing so effectively dries the dirt by removing the organic (moisture retaining) fraction of the dirt
We know that because its seen as rising atmospheric CO2 levels.
But of course, no-one wants to in any way ‘blame’ the farmers. To do so might result in there being nothing on the supermarket shelf.
Its like when you ask “Who is eating all this food?
Everyone lowers their eyes, tries to be invisible and avoid the question.
Same as when discussing world population.
Who made all these babies you might ask
Cue deathly silence.
Answer – We made the babies and we are eating the food.
Admit. it. Grow up. Take responsibility.
But no. All we’ve done is create an epic buck passing machine called Climate Science

Pamela Gray

Ridiculous comment. You have not a clue about dry land strip farming. I grew up on the practice. Strips of land were left fallow to absorb moisture. Land ready to plant was VERY carefully handled to preserve that moisture that had built up during the fallow period. How the hell do you think you could grow a crop on land you could not water?

Pamela Gray

Addendum. Every farmer I know would NEVER plow too wet soil to dry it out. Bad things happen to tractors, let alone leaving the soil severely compacted.

Regarding: “every year there is more and more oil that goes into the ocean. This oil floats on the surface in a monomolecular layer, and it reduces both conduction and evaporation.”:
I thought the Deepwater Horizon incident and other things showed that this oil does not accumulate on the ocean surface as the decades go on. Microbes have been found that consume it, and even tarry particles of oil suspended in the ocean. Even plastics are getting consumed by microbes according to https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/an-ocean-of-plastic/ (well into a long article). Also, organic compounds such as petroleum hydrocarbons do get oxidized, ultimately to water and CO2. If oil accumulation was significant, there would have been a noticeable accumulation from natural petroleum leaks over many millions of years such as in the Gulf of Mexico.
If oil that leaks into the environment accumulates over decades without oxidizing or getting consumed by microbes, then oil spills, oil well leaks and pipeline leaks would cause as much permanent or long-term (more than a few decades) harm as environmental activists claim.

Yep. And natural oil seeps put far more oil into the oceans than E&P operations do… And nature was putting oil into the oceans for millions of years before Col. Drake drilled his first oil well.

Richard M

At one time there was a large reduction in SSTs at the end of WW II in the Hadsst data. One of my thoughts was the sinking of hundreds if not thousands of ships had led to a lot of oil being spilled. While a lot of the cooling has been adjusted out of the Hadsst3 data, I am still wondering if this could be possible.
I assume the organisms that feed off of oil would grow near natural oil sources but would not exist everywhere. This would mean it would take some time for this oil to disappear. My view is the layer of oil would reflect more sunlight which would cool the oceans rather than prevent evaporation.
Thoughts?

The post-WWII cooling halted the rise in atmospheric rise in atmospheric CO2.

The HadSST adjustment was to account for bias changes due to shifts in nationality and military/civilian type of ships.

R. Shearer

I was trying to make some of these points.

Regarding the graph titled “Total Surface Radiation and Total Solar Radiation Anomalies, CERES Data Mar 2000 – FEB 2017”: I would like a cite for the source. This graph shows solar surface radiation increasing since 2000, mostly since the most recent solar maximum. I thought radiation from the sun was decreasing. Also, decreasing solar activity is supposed to let more cosmic rays reach Earth (which is actually happening) and that’s supposed to make Earth’s atmosphere cloudier.

Richard M

My assumption is the chart includes albedo. Thus, it most likely is showing a decrease in clouds.

Eric2

Another good post by Mr. Eschenbach, unfortunately flawed by a logic error. “Nobody knows” which of course somehow Mr. Eschebach “knows”. There could easily be several people on the planet that “know” the answer but do not have sufficient facts to prove that it is the answer in an acceptable way. It would have been more interesting to point out the flaw in Prof. Curry’s question and how that presupposition leads to potentially bad science.

Pamela Gray

Eric, you just scored a point for Willis simply based on your poor attempt to use logic. If facts are missing to support “knowing” the cause, the only logical conclusion is to state there is no “knowing” the cause. Faith in a cause and effect is not the same as knowing it. Without facts, it is still just faith. Might as well have faith in fairies dancing on the head of a pin.

eric2

Your comment seems off topic. I pointed out that Mr. Eschenbach made a truth claim, “Nobody knows”. Prove it. I generally enjoy his articles but conjecture is just that. Perhaps you have misread what I was saying.

Alan Tomalty

well if someone knew they would have said it. I have searched for a scientific explanation backed up by experiments to prove that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere. THERE IS NONE. Noone knows what in the hell is going on Even Michael F. Modest (perhaps the world authority on radiative heat transfer) refuses to get drawn into the controversy. So the climate modellers jumped in with computer simulations and mucked up everything. Now computer simulations have taken over and drive all policy which has lead to carbon taxes. What an ugly mess!!!!!!!!!!

eric2

1. Assuming someone would have said “it” if they knew “it” is an assumption. Probably true but possibly not.
2. The inablity to find somethng does not prove it is not there. (Lack of proof is not proof to the contrary)
3. That unscrupulous or ignorant people use shoddy science definately makes “an ugly mess” but wasn’t my point.
4. I was just trying to point out a flaw. The use of fallacious arguements is just a distraction, e.g.
(If facts are missing to support “nobody knows”, the only logical conclusion is to state there is no “nobody knows”. )
5. I generally find Mr. Eschenbach’s post interesting when he concentrates on verifiable data. The tendency to engage in philosophical or epistemological arguements I personnally don’t find as interesting.

crowcane

The question is from a judge not Dr Curry so you owe her an apology.

Ben Wouters

But wind speed is generally some function of ∆T, so less ∆T means less wind.

Wind speed is a function of pressure differences ∆P, not ∆T.
eg a high surface pressure of 1030 hPa can exist at a pole with surface temp -30C or over a desert with surface temp +30C. In both cases the air will flow towards the surrounding lower pressure (modified by the Coriolis effect) regardless whether the surrounding temperature is higher, lower or the same.
Temperature differences like those between equator and poles CAN create pressure differences AT ALTITUDE that cause air to flow from equator towards the poles.

Citizen science has its own rules.

Ben Wouters

Willis Eschenbach March 11, 2018 at 10:57 pm
Thanks for your response.

solar-driven higher surface temperatures in the desert expand the overlying air, leaving it less dense and lowering the atmospheric pressure. Meanwhile, there is cold denser higher-pressure air just offshore above the cold ocean. As a result, an air flow is set up between the cold ocean and the hot desert.

I brought this up again since this is a widespread misconception.
The higher surface temperatures in the deserts DO expand the column above, but this does NOT result in a lower surface pressure since the weight of the column does not change. Due to the expansion the pressure AT ALTITUDE will become higher than the pressure at the same altitude over eg the ocean.
Now air will move AT ALTITUDE from desert to ocean. Now finally less air above the desert (lower column weight) means lower surface pressure and more air above the ocean (higher column weight) mean higher surface pressure so the air AT THE SURFACE begins to move from the ocean towards the desert.
This mechanism is exactly the same as that for the Hadley circulation, no CB’s at the ITCZ required.

crowcane

The question is one of 8 which the judge asked both parties to answer in the case brought against the oil companies. This judge evidently believes that he will be able to understand enough of the issues involved in the climate debate to determine which side is at fault.

Alan Tomalty

The judge is dreaming but he should stick to the null hypothesis scientific method. If you tell me a pink elephant exists, then it is up to you to prove it. A computer simulation does not do the trick.

Richard M

There’s a new paper that may be appropriate for understanding why the planet has been warming over the past 3-400 years. It is not a climate paper directly which may be why it avoided censorship from climate gatekeepers. There is a nice chart (figure 2) that shows proxy SSTs along with salinity changes in other proxy data. There is a very nice correlation.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02846-4
In the proxy data we clearly see the LIA, previous warm periods and the modern warming. Here’s an interesting quote:
“However, the proxy-observation match of anomalously fresh SSS [salinity] in the northern Atlantic Ocean bolsters our confidence in implicating a weakened Gulf Stream and reduced surface-ocean circulation as an important dynamical process during the LIA.”
Just looking at the SSTs one could easily surmise that the modern warming “heat” has come from the oceans. The reason the oceans warmed was due to salinity changes. No need to invoke any greenhouse effect.
What drove the salinity changes is still an unanswered question although the paper does mention some possibilities.

Richard, that is an interesting paper, linking changes at a strategic spot in the Gulf of Mexico with changes in the larger world influenced by the Gulf Stream. From the conclusions:
“The broad agreement between the analyses supports similar ocean-atmosphere processes on multidecadal-to-centennial timescales, and provides additional evidence of a robust century-scale link between circulation changes in the Atlantic basin and precipitation in the adjacent continents.
Regardless of the specific physical mechanism concerning the onset of the LIA, and whether AMOC changes were linked with circulation changes in the surface ocean, we hypothesize that the reported oscillatory feedback on centennial-time scales involving the surface-circulation in the Atlantic Ocean and Western Hemisphere hydroclimate played an important role in last millennium climate variability and perhaps, over the late Holocene.”comment image?w=768
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/01/26/oceans-make-climate-sst-sss-and-precipitation-linked/

Pamela Gray

That the long term climate patterns leading and/or existing during glacial and interglacial periods (let alone what to call the damnable things), is complicated is quite the understatement of the modern age. That AGWs think it is not boggles the mind.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/store/10.1002/2015RG000482/asset/rog20091.pdf?v=1&t=jelhxauo&s=568cb6b107f80a3734c6adc399c2af8a3b466f82

Pamela Gray

Damn. When the singular/plural form of is/are gets too far from the reference, my 62yo mind can’t recall what I went to the kitchen for.

JimG1

Pamela,
Take it from one who knows, it gets worse, I think. What were we talking about?

Dan Davis

Pamela,
The neighbor on the porch is waiting for that cup of sugar…..
Indeed, complicated is the “settled seance” let alone the “sign-tists” clamoring for more gravy!

Bernard Lodge

Good fun with all the pedantry and word play but don’t let that detract from Willis’ main point.
This is a very powerful piece by Willis. His graph shows a very good fit between recent solar radiation and temperature.
That is good enough for me. It’s now up to the CAGW crown to prove that global warming is not due to the sun! Next time someone tells you to prove global warming is not due to CO2, show them this graph.
Let them try and prove a negative for a change!

Pamela Gray

In your past life you bought snake oil because somebody said something that matched you biased belief system. Worse, Willis didn’t say that internal solar variation causes Earth’s temperature variation. Yet you found something in his post to verify your already biased view.
In research, and especially critique, you MUST shelve your belief and leave no stone unturned to disprove your belief.

Sheri

Agreed. The message seemed to be “No one knows” yet people grab on a graph and “know”. There is nothing wrong with “We do not know”, though you will most likely be ripped apart by evolutionists, Big Bang theory believers, epidemiologists, etc because they BELIEVE.

Gordon Dressler

Willis,
One of my life’s primary observations is that a most difficult thing for any engineer or scientist (amateur or professional) to admit is “Nobody, including myself, knows.”
Congratulations on showing how it should be done, nobly.
Great article.

John

As an Engineer, I even had a boss tell me early on never to admit that you didn’t know. It was always better to say “I’m not certain”, and “I’ll look into it further”. I didn’t agree, but had to go along with the theme.

In response to your comment about the jacket. It depends on the source of the heat and the type of jacket whether your skin will become warmer. A fireman wears a jacket because the source of the heat is much hotter than he is. I wear a shirt when I jog at noon in the summer to stay cool because the sun is generating more heat than I am. If I am racing I may not wear a shirt because I am generating more heat. The source of the heat is very important and rarely discussed. When people want temperature sensors moved because they are too close to heat sources, it appears to me they are admitting that humans and land uses are a source of heat. When large cities are warmer than the surrounding areas it is not because of a CO2 jacket. It is because they are generating more heat. Your jacket has big holes that allow most of the infrared leaving earth to escape anyway. That is why we can take infrared pictures of earth from satellites and drones. We just don’t use 15 micron detectors. I cannot even find anyone that makes a 15 micron detector. There is probably such a small amount of energy at that wavelength that actually makes it anywhere that it would be expensive any useless to make that kind of detector except maybe to prove how much back radiation we are getting from CO2 which I don’t think anyone really wants to know.

eyesonu

Good work as always, Willis.
It is long past time for a peer reviewed paper to be published titled “We don’t know, nobody knows”. It will be one of the few that makes scientific sense.

Samuel C Cogar

The author states that Dr. Judith Curry’s question was:

What are the main sources of heat that account for the incremental rise in temperature on Earth?

After posting an “example” the author states, to wit:

I’m sure you can see the problem with Dr. Judith’s question—temperatures can rise without ANY new sources of heat or ANY change in existing sources of heat.

Unless the “reading” observer …… assumes or mentally injects the word(s) “average” or “global average” or “calculated global average” as descriptor(s) of the word “temperature”, …. in both the above statements, …… then neither one is logically or factually correct.
There has been a “pseudo calculated” incremental rise of the near-surface average temperature in the NH’s northern and polar latitudes on Earth, ……. but there has NOT been a “pseudo calculated” incremental rise of the near-surface average temperature in the NH’s southern and tropical latitudes on Earth.
And I specifically stated “pseudo calculated” simply because the afore stated “incremental rise of the near-surface temperature” infers that there has been a new source of heat, …… whereas the literal truth is that the cool/cold fall and wintertime near-surface temperature in the NH’s northern and polar latitudes have not been decreasing as much as they use to, thus resulting in a calculated average increase in temperature without the need of an increase in heat energy.
If the increase in the aforesaid fall and wintertime temperatures are the result of a new or increased heat source …… then shouldn’t, wouldn’t the spring and summertime temperatures be increasing also?

DMacKenzie

“The cooler ocean produces fewer and later daily clouds … you see the circle, you see the problem.” Sorry W, but I just don’t see any cause/effect failure in that logic.

w ==> At least you and I agree on something of importance — to whit: Nobody Really Knows.
I once sent Anthony an essay to post titled “What Causes The Temperature?” — which comprised an imaginary conversation with my then-seven-year-old granddaughter — with her playing devil’s advocate to my attempting to explain something as simple as daily temperature variations in her hometown of Ashland, Oregon. My conclusion was to admit, “Gee, we really don’t know what causes the temperature….”
Anthony declined the essay — probably rightfully so, we do so hate to admit that we don’t know, we don’t understand, such seemingly simple things.

Wim Röst

“we do so hate to admit that we don’t know, we don’t understand, such seemingly simple things.”
But it is perhaps the best point we can make: ‘Nobody Really Knows’. It means that somebody who says he/she knows, probably will fail when he has to make an exact prediction.
It is easier to explain that there are so many factors with so many releationships and so many unknown data besides (!) the chaotic behaviour of both oceans and atmosphere that no one is able to predict.
Ask ‘predictors’ what the first date in May will be for perfect barbecue weather, with a hundred percent certainty: 25 degrees at 6 o’clock in the evening in place X, no rain, no wind. Who cannot predict such a simple thing, is not able to predict climate because future climate is the average of weather over the next 30 years.