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).
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
pull the other leg, it has bells on it …
&f=1
Willis, Is this you ?
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.
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/
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….
Let’s hope he’s off “meditating on Mark Twain’s words”.
Gibo March 10, 2018 at 3:06 am
Gosh, you mean I wrote something and someone doesn’t like my tone? Gibo, no matter what I write there is always someone, usually an anonymous internet popup like yourself, who wants to tell me that they don’t like my tone, or the feelz, or how I phrased a passage, or something.
Today, that random anonymous popup is you. Congratulations.
And I think that Dr. Roy falsely accused me of plagiarism because he didn’t take the time to do his homework. See here for my response. He was way out of line.
We all are …
w.
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.
True, it’s the Judge’s question, and it’s also the title of Dr. Judith’s piece.
And that’s exactly why we generally don’t use judges to settle scientific disputes …
Thanks,
w.
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.
yes, he is right
in numerous situations
as is cognog2
and wrong
in other situations.
Care to narrow it down a bit?
@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’)
😐
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.
And hence, Canadian oil sands…
Dr Judith Curry posseses an internal source of heat, doesn’t she ?
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/
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.
“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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
My assumption is the chart includes albedo. Thus, it most likely is showing a decrease in clouds.
Donald, you say “I would like a cite for the source.” The source is the CERES Data Mar 2000 – Feb 2017. I’m using Edition 4.0 of the data. The CERES data includes 1°x1° gridded datasets for both the total radiation absorbed by the surface, and the total solar radiation absorbed by the surface. I analyzed the datasets myself. The data is available here.
w.
Thanks!
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.
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.
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.
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!!!!!!!!!!
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.
The question is from a judge not Dr Curry so you owe her an apology.
crowcane March 10, 2018 at 6:10 am
1) It’s the headline of her post. She adopted it as her own by asking it on her blog.
2) Unless she has appointed you as her spokeswoman, who cares what you think about apologies? If Dr. Judith thinks I owe her an apology, I will certainly not be opposed … but you?
I’m sorry, but I don’t pay attention to people like yourself who take second-hand offense on behalf of someone they never met … when it comes to apologies, my iron-clad policy is to deal with the organ-grinder, not the monkey …
w.
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 March 10, 2018 at 6:24 am
Thanks, Ben. While wind is indeed a function of atmospheric pressure differences ∆P, atmospheric pressure, in turn, is most often a function of air temperature.
We see this all the time here in California, when the southern desert heats up. The 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. This temperature difference is what drives the horrendous winds of the “fair-weather gales” that plague the coast and have sunk many ships …
The same is true with the “terminator winds”, the winds that blow nearly constantly across the “terminator line” dividing night and day. You may know them as the “dawn wind” and the “dusk wind”. Day is warmer, night is cooler, and as a result the winds always blow from night to day. Yes, they are driven by the pressure differences across the terminator … but those pressure differences in turn are the result of the temperature differences. As a result, once again the wind is being driven by the temperature differences, which create the pressure differences which push the wind. Heck, there’s even a moon wind that blows across the moon’s terminator …
As you can see, the pressure differences in all those cases are NOT causing the temperature differences. Instead,the temperature differences are causing the pressure differences … which is why I said that that winds are generally a function of ∆T. You are correct about ∆P, but you didn’t follow the chain of logic to the next step, to the actual driver of ∆P, which is almost always ∆T.
Best to you, and thanks for the comment,
w.
skepticgonewild March 11, 2018 at 9:49 pm
So does congenital bitterness, so it seems … skeptic, please read the above. Nature, not “citizen science” but nature, has its own rules, rules which you appear to be as innocent of as a newborn babe …
w.
“what I really meant to say”, just doesn’t cut it.
Per Wikipedia:
“Wind is caused by differences in the atmospheric pressure. When a difference in atmospheric pressure exists, air moves from the higher to the lower pressure area, resulting in winds of various speeds. On a rotating planet, air will also be deflected by the Coriolis effect, except exactly on the equator.”
You were correct, Ben. Willis does not take too well to criticism.
skepticgonewild March 11, 2018 at 11:44 pm
Since I never said that, nor anything remotely resembling that, why on earth should I care what it cuts or doesn’t cut?
Don’t try to stuff words in my mouth, skeptic. It just makes you look vindictive, and more to the point, it won’t work.
w.
Instead of saying he was wrong about wind speed and ∆T, he goes for the save and fails. We look at isobaric maps for wind speed analysis, not isothermal.
He just shoots himself in the foot. He can’t admit his error and move along. No. Some long winded explanation with random wind event factoids to make him seem knowledgeable. Like he’s some master sage, passing his profound wisdom to Ben.
People see right through this. You are only fooling yourself.
skepticgonewild March 12, 2018 at 12:46 am
WR: “Skeptic”, you are still going wild. Much too wild.
Weather and climate are about the physical world. For that: leave all personal things out. If there is anything left, you may comment.
Willis Eschenbach March 11, 2018 at 10:57 pm
Thanks for your response.
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.
Ben Wouters March 12, 2018 at 2:08 am
Ben, since the end result is that pressure is lower over warm areas and higher over cold areas, I fear that what you describe does NOT contradict what I said. Yes, I left out a bunch of intermediate steps. However, you’ve left out some too—there is additional work expended as the air warms and expands for example, which you didn’t mention. And when the column of air expands, it does NOT just expand vertically as you seem to think, it expands horizontally as well. This is a separate part of the reason low pressure is associated with high temperatures. As usual, everything in climate is complex.
But I was not interested in the precise details of the mechanism. I was pointing at the end result, so I skipped over all the intermediate steps that you correctly list, and simply said that we get lower pressures in warm areas and higher pressures in cold areas. The fact that I left out those intermediate steps, however, does not make my claim a “misconception”.
Best regards,
w.
PS—Cue skepticgonewild for his latest rant on how I’m the devil incarnate or whatever his latest fantasy might be …
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.
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.
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:
?w=768
“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.”
https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2018/01/26/oceans-make-climate-sst-sss-and-precipitation-linked/
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
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.
Pamela,
Take it from one who knows, it gets worse, I think. What were we talking about?
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!
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!
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.
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.
Bernard, you seem to have missed the part where I said:
w.
Willis,
No, I did see that.
What I missed was /sarc 🙂
Good post by the way.
I saw it, too, Bernard.
The thing that always pops out is THE SUN! Seems we could assign a weight to heat from the Earth’s core and possible radiative effects of cosmic rays, then the rest is due to the big ball of hot gas we see every day.
The re-radiative heating seems to be the biggest bone of contention. And I already attributed the paranoia of the progressives because carbon dioxide is something that humans can influence ( not CONTROL completely). Therefore, the evil gas is given an undue weight in the regressions and feedback aspects of the poor models that is hard to challenge effectively.
Jez say in’
Gums
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.
Only one thing more difficult than that, Gordon. It’s for a scientist or engineer to say “I was wrong” …
w.
It is not so much the error, as the fact you made it.
I did… to you years ago… and yeah… it was hard. 🙂
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.
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.
The author states that Dr. Judith Curry’s question was:
After posting an “example” the author states, to wit:
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?
“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.
Thanks, DMacKensie. The failure is that the temperatures cause the changes in the clouds … and the clouds in turn cause the changes in the temperature. Which is cause and which is effect?
w.
I tend to think that whatever might cause an ocean surface temperature increase of say 15C to 1 degree higher, it could be an upwelling warm tropical current, would cause 7% more water vapor above that bit of ocean, which would then cause 7% more cloud on its random journey from sea level to top of troposphere at -55 C, thus reflecting more sunlight back into space, albeit a couple of days later and a couple of hundred miles away from the warm ocean surface that started it all, thus causing surface cooling at some other location. The cause and effect seem clear to me, although I admit if you assume the degree of warming was caused by sunshine to start with, you can more readily convince yourself that a chicken and egg scenario is under way.
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.
“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.